Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Water) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

APPLICATIONS (RECONSIDERATION).

Mr. LANSBURY: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Members of this House are continually bringing to the notice of his Department cases of disabled ex-service men and dependants of men who lost their lives in the late War whose claims for pensions have been rejected on the ground that the disability or death was not due or attributable to service in the War, and that in all these cases the final appeal tribunal has also decided against the applicants; and whether, in view of the grave suffering inflicted on such persons by the refusal of his Department to reopen such cases owing to the decision of this House that such appeals must be final, he will inform the House what steps he proposes to take to reopen such cases without further legislation, or, alternatively, tell the House when he will introduce such an Amendment of the Royal Warrant as will enable him to give to every disabled, or partially disabled, man, or the dependants of such men, as were passed fit for service, such pensions and allowances as will enable them to maintain themselves without recourse to the Poor Law?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Frederick Roberts): I am aware that
among the cases referred to there are some which on merits call for reconsideration. I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that, by an extention of arrangements initiated by my predecessors, I have now been enabled to secure that all cases in which additional evidence is furnished shall be fully considered and a suitable grant made, with the assistance of the Treasury, if the disability or death is now found, in the light of all the evidence available, to be due to service in the late War. The necessary arrangements are being made to enable such cases, if they are referred to local or regional offices, to be dealt with.

ABERBARGOED OFFICE.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received letters from ex-service men in the Rhymney Valley protesting against the removal of the pensions office from Aberbargoed, or even making it a part-time office; and is he aware that this is the centre of a large industrial area, where the need of such an office is great and its convenience badly needed; and will he take steps to secure that this be done?

Mr. ROBERTS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. It is not, at present, proposed to alter the status of the sub-office in question.

ROYAL BERKSHIRE REGIMENT (W. WALLIS).

Mr. STRANGER: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of William Wallis, of Langbourne, late Royal Berkshire Regiment, private, No. 13,051, Ministry of Pensions No. 11/M/235,762, who enlisted on the outbreak of war, received a gunshot wound in the chest in the vicinity of the heart on the 27th September, 1915, was reported on the 10th August, 1916, by the invaliding board as suffering from that wound and from breathlessness on slight exertion attributable to a severe dose of gas which he got while lying wounded, and never likely again to be fit for soldiering; whether he is aware that the medical board has awarded a final assessment of 6–14 per cent. indeterminate duration, amounting to 7s. 6d. a week for two years and £20 gratuity, in respect of the gunshot wound in the chest, but, has not and never did award anything in respect of his having been gassed;
whether he is aware that the ground put forward for refusal of the board is the statement that the records of the hospitals in which he served during the War do not furnish evidence that he ever received treatment for such a condition; and whether, in view of the evidence of his medical attendant that his heart is in an extremely unsatisfactory state and the report of the invaliding board that his breathlessness was attributable to a severe dose of gas, a medical board may be directed to re-assess his disability?

Mr. ROBERTS: I fear that the hon. Member has misapprehended the information conveyed to him. Mr. Wallis was wounded in the chest, and the symptoms claimed by him as due to gassing have in fact been taken full congnizance of, accepted as associated with his gunshot wound, and included in the assessments for the wounds. The final award, which has been confirmed on appeal within the past few months by the independent Appeal Tribunal, was based on an assessment of disablement in which full account was taken of all the symptoms of the case.

Mr. STRANGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tribunal said there was no evidence that there was any gas injury at all, whereas the documents showed that the gas injury had occurred?

Mr. ROBERTS: If the hon. Member will submit to me further information on that point, I will have it looked into.

ADMINISTRATION.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 10.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the grave inconvenience and loss of employment which would be caused among the staff of the Ministry now employed at Acton, he can give any assurance to the House that it is not proposed to decentralise the issue of pensions to the regions?

Mr. ROBERTS: There is no present intention of making this change, but I am, of course, unable to give a pledge that, should such a step be found advantageous at some future date, it would not be taken.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at page 275 of this year's Labour Year Book, where be will find this
change outlined, and may I press him to reconsider it, as it will throw out of employment many hard-working people in my constituency?

Mr. ROBERTS: I think that that point is well covered by the answer which I have given.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: I am very nervous about it.

EX-SERVICE MEN (MINISTRY OF PENSIONS).

Mr. J. GARDNER: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether any proposals are under consideration for the staffing of area offices of the Ministry with permanent civil servants; and whether, seeing that the chief area officers, deputy chief area officers, and clerks at area offices are all ex-service men, many of them disabled, and that these temporary civil servants have had years of intimate association with pensioners, he will, in the interests of the ex-service men employed in the area offices, restrict employment, other than typists and cleaners, in those offices to the men who have efficiently carried on their duties for many years?

Mr. ROBERTS: Proposals for staffing the area offices on a permanent basis have been put forward by the staff side of the Departmental Whitley Council, and are at present under consideration by the Council. I recognise the importance of the considerations mentioned by my hon. Friend, and they will not be overlooked when taking a decision.

MARRIED WOMEN (NATIONALITY).

Mr. PENNY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in view of recent legislation in the United States of America under which a foreign woman does not on marriage to an American acquire American nationality, certain Continental countries, including France, have passed legislation allowing women to retain their nationality on marriage to American subjects; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing a Measure according similar treatment to British-born women who marry Americans?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I am not aware that France or any other country has passed any such legislation since the American law was changed. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for the Louth Division (Mrs. Wintringham) on 3rd March last.

Mr. PENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to find out whether it is not the case that other Governments have passed this legislation?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have made inquiries, and cannot find anything in the direction that the hon. Member indicates.

PRISON SENTENCES.

Mr. AYLES: 12.
asked the Home Secretary if he will inform the House what reforms in the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences have been introduced into His Majesty's prisons and penal settlements during the past three years?

Mr. HENDERSON: It would be difficult to summarise the information asked for so that it could he given in answer to a question, and I would refer the hon. Member to the Annual Reports of the Prison Commissioners, issued as Parliamentary Papers.

CHILD'S SENTENCE, WESTON SUPER-MARE.

Mr. HUDSON: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, 18 months ago, a child of seven named Reggie Ford was sentenced to eight years' detention in an industrial school by the magistrates of Weston-super-Mare for taking money from a shop on the instigation of other boys his senior; whether he is aware that the child is now lying dangerously ill in Bath; and whether the entire remission of the child's sentence will now be recommended?

Mr. HENDERSON: The attention of the Home Office was drawn to this case last October, and inquiry was made, but at that time the managers of the school, after considering the circumstances, were unable to recommend the boy's release on
licence. It was ascertained that he had stolen money from a shop, and had previously been before the Court for stealing. At the request of his father, the magistrates decided to send him to a residential school. A few weeks ago the boy was sent to hospital, but he was not seriously ill, and he is now reported to be convalescent. In order to satisfy myself as to the course which it is desirable to take in the best interests of the boy, I have sent an inspector to investigate the circumstances on the spot.

SWEEPSTAKES (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. FOOT: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has come to a decision as to the intervention asked for by local residents in respect of the Otley sweepstake; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

Mr. HENDERSON: Proceedings are being taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether, before the mail addressed to the Otley Conservative Club Derby sweepstakes organisation or to the Actors' Association at Liverpool was intercepted under orders from his Department and proceedings initiated against the promoters, the chief constable or police authorities gave official notification to the promoters that a breach of the law was being committed; and whether the procedure adopted in the case of the two organisations alluded to was identical with what followed in the case of the mammoth draw organised by the Bootle Trades and Labour Council?

Mr. HENDERSON: A warning was given by the police to the promoters of the sweepstakes organised by the Otley Unionist Club and the Liverpool Branch of the Actors' Association before any action was taken. The procedure adopted in these two cases, and in the case of the mammoth draw organised by the Bootle Trades and Labour Council, has been substantially the same.

Viscount CURZON: 26 and 27.
asked the Home Secretary (I) whether his attention has been called to a grand draw organised by the Kingswinford Divisional Labour Party, offering prizes of a pair of lady's hoots, six pounds of pork, a fowl, a bottle
of port, a bottle of whisky, and a half-a-dozen tumblers; and whether he proposes to take any action against the organisers;
(2) whether the Post Office are confiscating the in-coming mail addressed to W. Willetts, the chairman of the Kingswinford Divisional Labour party in respect of the grand draw organised by that party for, inter alia, a gent's suit, a lady's costume, a ton of coal, a ham about 32 pounds, and a shaving outfit?

Mr. HENDERSON: My attention has not previously been called to this matter, and I am making inquiry.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question of the bottle of port and the bottle of whisky?

Mr. COOPER RAWSON: Will he inquire if any Member of the House has won the gent's suit?

GERMAN MUSIC-HALL ARTISTES.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 17.
asked the Horne Secretary whether he is aware that nearly 500 German music-hall performers have obtained permission to appear in England shortly; and whether, in view of the prevailing unemployment, this matter can be reconsidered?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise. Only five permits under the Aliens' Order, to enable German music-hall artistes to work in Great Britain, have been issued during the last 17 months, and these permits have been for short periods.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

PAY AND ALLOWANCES.

Mr. BLACK: 23.
asked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to take to bring the remuneration of the police force into line with the generally-reduced remuneration of workers in the various trades and in view of the big drop in the cost of living, as shown by the Board of Trade figures?

Mr. HENDERSON: Certain substantial deductions were made from the pay and allowances of the police in 1922, when the cost of living index figures was not much higher than it is now, and it was recently decided to continue these for the present at the same rates as heretofore.

Mr. HAYES: Is it not the case that adequate machinery exists for dealing with this proposal, and moreover, in view of the fact that to bring the police down will not help other workers, should not the policy be to bring the other workers up?

PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that a pre-War police pensioner, to obtain an increase under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, is obliged to fill up forms stating his income from all sources and also the income of his wife, while a pensioner under the Desborough Report is not so obliged however large his income may be and if he can see his way to withdraw this requirement in the case of the pre-War pensioner so that both classes may be placed on equal terms?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): The increases granted under the Pensions (In. crease) Act represent a voluntary addition made by Parliament to the normal service pensions, subject to the pensioner satisfying the pension authority under Section 2 (3) of the Act that his means are within the statutory limits. A statement of income from all sources is therefore obligatory under the terms of that Act if a pensioner is to satisfy the pension authority, whereas pensions granted under the Police (Pensions) Act are normal service pensions which are awarded, like service pensions generally, without reference to pecuniary need, and therfore without a statement of income.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to remove this anomaly?

Mr. GRAHAM: No. I cannot give a pledge of that kind, because the cases are on an entirely different footing.

PENSIONS.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to
take any steps whereby those members of the police force who were advised to retire before the 1st April, 1919, after which date the new scales of pay and pension came into force, shall be given pensions on the increased scale which they would have enjoyed had they remained a little longer in the force?

Mr. HENDERSON: In certain cases where a member of the force agreed to advance the date of his retirement in order to meet the convenience of the police authority, the pension has been reassessed as though the man had continued to serve after 1st April, 1919.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 19.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to take any steps whereby police pensioners who were compelled to continue their service in the force during the War, although they had completed their 26 years' service, shall be given their pensions retrospectively for the time during which they served, in order to put them on the same basis as sailors and soldiers?

Mr. HENDERSON: No Sir; I do not think there is any analogy between the two cases. Police pensions like other civil pensions are regulated by Statute upon principles which. I understand, are quite different from those which apply to naval or military pensions.

PROBATION OFFICERS.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 24.
asked the Home Secretary how many courts of summary jurisdiction have appointed probation officers, and how many have failed to make such provision?

Mr. HENDERSON: A recent return shows that, out of 1,029 petty sessional divisions in England and Wales, about 170 have not appointed probation officers.

Mr. WHITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate taking any action to bring those authorities into line with the rest?

Mr. HENDERSON: We are constantly taking action, and bringing all the influence we can to bear upon them in the direction indicated.

BRITISH FASCITI

Mr. BARNES: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on Tuesday evening, 20th May, a number of individuals, styling themselves as British Fascisti, raided a meeting of the Young Communist League being held on the premises of the Labour Hall, Katherine Road, East Ham; and whether, since such action is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, he will inform the House what steps he proposes to take to prevent incidents of this description from becoming a practice?

Mr. HENDERSON: The police will deal impartially with any disturbance or breach of the peace that comes to their notice. I have made inquiry in regard to the incident referred to in the question, and am informed that the police have no knowledge of any such raid, and that no disturbance was brought to their notice.

Mr. HAYES: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any representations made to him as to Members of this House receiving threats from any persons styling themselves thus?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have not.

Viscountess ASTOR: I have had a lot front the Communists.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Are not the Young Communists always inciting the bleaches of the peace?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the fact that these so-called British Fascisti go about with the badge "B.F." on their arms?

An HON. MEMBER: So they are

LIQUOR TRAFFIC, UNITED STATES.

Major BURNIE: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a baronet is issuing circulars inviting British subjects to participate in financing cargoes of whisky to be sold on the high seas just outside the radius of the treaty recently concluded with the United States of America; and whether he intends to introduce legislation to make this practice illegal?

Mr. HENDERSON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers given by the Prime Minister yesterday to a question by the hon. Member for East Renfrew (Mr. Nichol) and to supplementary questions on this subject.

Mr. FOOT: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that a widely-circulated appeal is being made over the name of Lieut.-Colonel Sir Brodrick Hartwell, Baronet, for investments to enable him to import liquor into the United States; and whether the Government can take any steps to check this effort to evade the law of a friendly State?

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to circulars recently issued by Sir Broderick Hartwell, Baronet, inviting contributions from members of the public towards the shipment of liquor from this country for delivery on the high seas to vessels b longing to the American rum-running fleet, and guaranteeing a return of 25 per cent. on the money contributed within 60 days from the date the shipment leaves the United Kingdom; and whether, in view of the incitement which such traffic constitutes towards the breach of the laws of a friendly nation and the disturbance thereby created of the existing good relations between the United States and this country, he is prepared to institute an immediate inquiry into the matter, and to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether such practices constitute a, breach of the provisions of Section 81 of the Spirits Act, 1880, and of the Regulations issued by the Commissioners of Customs under that Act?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): His Majesty's Government are advised that the trans-shipment on the high seas of spirits exported without payment of duty is not of itself an infringement of the provisions of the Spirits Act, 1880. But I would refer both hon. Members to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for East Renfrew and to other hon. Members yesterday.

Mr. FOOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider in this circular if the title of Lieut.-Colonel and Baronet is being used as a cover for reprehensible practices, and, if so, whether any mark of His Majesty's disfavour can be shown?

Mr. PONSONBY: I am afraid the Foreign Office have no control over baronets as such.

Mr. MILLAR: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake.to consult with those
interested in the matter in the House with a view to an amendment of the Regulations of the Commissioners of Customs under the Spirits Act in order to prevent this practice?

Mr. PENNY: To check this practice, will the Government subsidise the importation of sweetened table waters?

Mr. HOPE: Are not the profits of this industry liable to diminution by the appearance of third parties in other vessels who appropriate the cargo without compensation?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not almost an international scandal of a very grave character?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ACTING TEACHERS (EXAMINATIONS).

Mr. W. A. JENKINS: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the Board of Education has made no arrangements for the examination of acting teachers for their certificates beyond November, 1924; and, inasmuch as there are many teachers now preparing who, through circumstances, may be prevented from taking their examinations in 1924, or who may fail and desire to try again. and in view of the fact that there are many candidates who are not eligible to sit until after 1924, and who, through pressure of home responsibilities and financial circumstances, are unable to proceed to a training college, will he take steps to arrange for an extension of the teachers' examination beyond 1924?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I am fully aware of all the relevant factors in this matter, but, as I have already explained in answer to questions in this House, I propose to await the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Training of Teachers before arriving at a final decision.

Mr. JENKINS: Seeing that this will fall mainly upon the sons and daughters of hard-working people, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly give it his favourable and special consideration?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I have said that I will wait until. I get the Report, which I am expecting.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, considering his removal of the restrictions on free places in secondary schools and giving school authorities liberty to raise the percentage of these free places to 40 per cent., he will state what are the conditions prescribed for the grant of a free place; and whether he requires a certificate from the master of the elementary school that, in his opinion, the child whom he recommends for a free place in a secondary school will be capable of passing on to a university if given the opportunity?

Mr. TREVELYAN: The rules governing the award of free places are set out in the Appendix to the Regulations for Secondary Schools, of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy. A certificate of capacity of passing on to a university is not required.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, in the Maes-y-Cwmmer area, Monmouthshire, 200 children passed the examination which qualified them for a place in a secondary school, but that places could only be found for 35 of them, and that these children are prevented through this cause from receiving this higher education, notwithstanding the fact that many of their parents are prepared to pay for them; and will he take steps to see that some temporary accommodation is made for this purpose until permanent schools are provided?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I am aware that the demand for secondary school accommodation in the Rhymney Valley has been for some time in excess of the supply. The Board, however, have recently sanctioned the provision of a new secondary school for 150 children at Rhymney in a commodious house purchased by the local education authority, and I understand that this school will be opened in September next. A classroom for 30 children was also added to the Rhymney Valley secondary school last November with the approval of the Board, and I hope that this increased provision of secondary school places will materially relieve the pressure on the existing accommodation.

EMPIRE DAY ADDRESS (DEAL CENTRAL SCHOOLS).

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to a speech made on the 23rd instant to the children at the Deal central schools on the lessons of Empire Day, containing the statement that another war was certain, and that it was their duty to prepare for it; and will he take steps to prevent such addresses being delivered to children in public elementary schools?

Mr. COSTELLO: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to a speech made to the children at Deal central schools on Friday last; and, if so, will he take such steps as he is able to prevent in the future the giving of militarist speeches in schools maintained at the public expense?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I have seen a short Press report of the speech referred to. I am certain that what the majority of the House would like to see impressed upon the mind of the rising generation in our schools is the hope of permanent peace between nations secured under the League of Nations, and not the inevitability of future wars. But I believe that local education authorities have no sympathy with militarism, and therefore that it may safely be left to their discretion to guard against any expression of it in the schools.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his address on peace, what steps is he taking to stop this sort of stuff being taught in the schools?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I have not got control over the schools and of those people who are allowed to make speeches in them by the local education authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: In attempting to stop the teaching of militarism, will the right hon. Gentleman also stop the teaching of Communism?

Mr. COVE: Is my hon. Friend aware that not a single instance in a single school by a single teacher has been proved of the teaching of Communism?

PROVISION OF MEALS.

Mr. NIXON: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many
necessitous children received meals in elementary schools; how many meals were served in 1923; and what was the cost per meal?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): The latest period for which my right hon. Friend has complete figures is the year ending 31st March, 1923. During that year 149,676 children received school meals under the provisions of the Education Act, 1921; of these, 127,636 received free meals. The total number of meals provided was 17,171,298, of which 14,991,798 were provided free. The average total cost per meal was 3.6d. During the calendar year 1913, 11,463,487 meals were provided, of which 9,357,5:57 were provided free.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (MEDICAL ASSISTANCE).

Mr. AYLES: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared, when he is considering the removal of restrictions on old age pensions, to also consider the provision of medical assistance apart from the Poor Law?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): I must ask my hon. Friend to await the introduction of the Government's proposals.

Mr. AYLES: When does my right hon. Friend hope to introduce his proposals?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I had hoped to be able to introduce them by Whitsuntide, hut I am afraid the pressure of other business will prevent me doing so. I expect to put them before the House immediately after the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

TOBACCO DUTY.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of import taxation now levied on one pound of the cheapest tobacco sold in this country?

Mr. SNOWDEN: As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, the Tobacco Duty is levied on the raw leaf
before manufacture, aid the rate of duty depends on the moisture it then contains. I am not, therefore, in a position to state definitely the amount of duty levied on a pound of tobacco which has undergone the process of manufacture, but I estimate that it would be about 5s. 9d. per pound on the cheapest varieties.

SUPER-TAX.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in a particular case Super-tax paid a year too soon on 6 per cent. Exchequer Bonds has been assessed again for the following year, although the amount due has been paid the year previously; and will he give instructions to the Inland Revenue Department to withdraw this claim?

Mr. SNOWDEN: If the hon. and gallant Member will furnish me with particulars of the case to which he refers, I will cause inquiry to be made, and will communicate the results to him in due course.

IRISH FREE STATE (ACCOUNTS).

Colonel GRETTON: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will lay a Paper showing the accounts as between the Irish Free State and the British Treasury op to 31st March this year and if the statement will give details under the items in the accounts and of any sums of money outstanding?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I hope that the Paper which is being prepared will be ready for presentation next week. Details of the amounts paid, and the sums outstanding, will be given under the heads of Part I of the Financial Statement presented to Parliament by the late Government last year (Command Paper 1930).

Colonel GRETTON: Is not the Command Paper inadequate, its details not being sufficient to give a real view of the situation?

Mr. HEALY: Is account taken in the White Paper of spirits imported from the Free State into this country?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I urn afraid that does not arise out of the question. Might I ask the hon. Member opposite to await
the publication of this Paper next week, and if there is any further information he requires, I shall be happy to obtain it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

NON-CO-OPERATION PARTY.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the statement of the Secretary of Stale for India as to the desirability of the Imperial Government getting into closer touch with the Non-Co-operation party in India was made with the approval of the Cabinet; if he will state whether the Government propose to take action in the direction of an extension of Home Rule in India; and when he proposes to make a statement as to the Government's policy in this matter?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I am not aware that the Secretary of State for India has made any statement in the language set out in the hon. and gallant Member's question. My noble Friend, with the approval of his colleagues in the Government, said in another place, on the 26th February last that His Majesty's Government were earnestly desirous of availing themselves of any disposition towards effective con sultation, and were open to consider any practical proposals for establishing closer contact and betters understanding. In reply to the second part of the question, the Government are not at present prepared to make any proposals for action in the direction of an extension of Home Rule in India.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is this an example of the new methods of the Government communicating Cabinet decisions to the people in India?

Mr. CLYNES: It is not.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that the Government view with approval the action of the Secretary of State in communicating direct with this extremist leader in India?

Mr. CLYNES: My Noble Friend has not made any statement in the language set out in the question.

FORESTRY SERVICE (PROBATIONERS).

Mr. RAWLINSON: 71 and 72.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) whether, in future, probationers for the Indian Forest Service will still continue to be able to be trained at any university having a forestry department, or whether they will be compelled to be trained at Oxford; and what sum it is proposed should be spent on the training of such probationers during the present financial year from the Estimates and from the funds of the Forestry Committee;
(2) whether any and what new arrangements have been made, or are proposed, for the selection of probationers for the Indian Forest Service; whether graduates of any university will still continue to be eligible for selection without further conditions being imposed; and whether any new Regulations will be allowed to be discussed in the House before they come into force?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. R. Richards): I will answers these questions together. The Government of India have proposed that from the autumn of 1925 onwards probationers for the Indian Forest Service shall be trained at Dehra Dun. This proposal is still under consideration. No change is proposed in the qualifications for appointment, and graduates of any university in the United Kingdom or India will continue to be eligible. The Royal Commission on the Superior Civil Services in India has recommended that no further recruitment should be made for the Indian Forest Service in Bombay and Burma, in which provinces forest administration is a transferred subject, and that the Governments of those two provinces should in future re[...]ruit their own forest officers. I cannot say what arrangements will be made, if this recommendation is accepted, for training probationers for the two provinces in question. The cost of training probationers is borne by Indian revenues, and no change is contemplated in this respect.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Do I understand from the answer that no change is to be made at present in the selection of probationers, and that they will not be compelled in any way to reside at one particular university?

Mr. RICHARDS: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

DISARM ANENT.

Sir F. HALL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the evidence afforded by the prosecution, at the instance of the German Ministry of Defence, of Dr. Zeigner, the late Premier of Saxony, for high treason for his disclosure of the association between the Army and certain illegal police and defence forces, that Germany is evading her disarmament obligations, he will state what action is being taken by the Allies to resume the control of military arrangements in Germany reserved to them by the Peace Treaty?

Mr. CLYNES: His Majesty's Government have no official information respecting the prosecution of Dr. Zeigner, but they are giving their fullest attention to the whole subject of military control in Germany. Their endeavour is that the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control shall resume its legitimate activities so as to complete its mission within a measurable distance of time.

Sir F. HALL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is necessary that the Departments should be able to communicate and keep them in touch with matters of this important nature?

Mr. CLYNES: My answer implies that the Government have only acted on official information.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman get in touch with the German Government owing to the importance of the matter and ask whether there is any truth in the statements contained in the question I have put on the Paper to-day?

Mr. CLYNES: The second part of my answer implies it.

Sir F. HALL: Then you will do so?

REPARATION PAYMENTS.

Mr. MOREL: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what sums are still due by Germany to this country under the head of reparation payments other than comprised in pensions and allowances?

Mr. GRAHAM: The Reparation Commission did not assess individual items in the Allied Powers' Reparation claims on Germany, and it is impossible to allo-
cate the obligations of Germany to particular heads. The total British Empire share of Germany's reparation obligation is 22 per cent. of £6,600 millions spread over a long period of years. The amount so far received is approximately £15 millions.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Germans have paid any reparations towards the British subjects whose property was totally destroyed in the war area?

Mr. GRAHAM: On questions of that kind I cannot make a statement at the moment. I should be obliged if the hon. Member would put a question on the Paper.

Captain BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman say, roughly, what the British charge for pensions is, compared with other charges? Is it not a fact that M. Poincaré has made such an allocation for the French?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not familiar with statements made elsewhere. All I can say is that the particular heads are not made out in that way, and I cannot give any information on the spur of the moment which would be worth anything.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AEROPLANES(LANDING PLACES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps he is taking to increase the number of suitable landing-places for aeroplanes; whether there are any arrangements for utilising racecourses, recreation fields, golf-courses, etc., for this purpose; and whether he will consider, or has considered, the paying of a small subsidy to the owners of such spaces who will keep a certain area clear of obstacles and provide wind-cones to indicate the wind direction near the ground?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): The subject of the hon. and gallant Member's question is receiving the fullest consideration in connection with the scheme for the air defence of Great Britain, anti it has already been examined by an Inter-Departmental Committee which is dealing
with the home defence organisation. It is not yet possible to give details of the measures which it is proposed to adopt, but the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that those suggested by him are being given due consideration.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Gentleman says this is being considered from the point of view of home defence. Is it also being considered from the point of view of commercial aviation and aviation fey pleasure?

Mr. LEACH: Yes, that is so.

DECEASED AIRMEN (ALLOWANCES).

Major HORE-BELISHA: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the case of Leading-aircraftsman H. S. Nicholls, who met his death in the course of his duty through the crashing of an aeroplane; whether he has received from the mother of the deceased aircraftsman a claim asking that she may be refunded the expenses to which she was put in connection with the funeral and for a pension, upon the ground that her deceased son made her a regular allowance of 14s. a week; whether he is aware that these claims have been rejected by the Air Ministy because the Air Council have only power to grant a small weekly allowance to the parents of deceased airmen if their pecuniary circumstances are desperate and whether, seeing that a pension would have been granted to the parents of the deceased aircraftsman if he had met his death on active service, and in view of the fact that the parents of the deceased were partially dependent upon the allotment made to them by their son, he can see his way to grant the claim made or to alter the regulations?

Mr. LEACH: With the hon. and gallant Gentleman's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major HORE-BELISHA: If the hon. Gentleman's answer contains a refusal, would he undertake to look into the whole subject in view of the fact that the parents of this man were dependent upon his earnings?

Mr. LEACH: I have gone into the matter very carefully already.

Following is the answer:

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards
the third part, the Air Council have power, where a deceased airmen leaves no widow nor children, to grant an allowance to his parents if they were largely dependent upon him at the time of his death and are in such pecuniary need as to justify the grant. In the present case the latter condition was not fulfilled and the allowance could not, therefore, be granted. The maximum grant in aid of funeral expenses was, however, made, and the balance of these expenses, to which the claim received from the airman's mother relates, can be met from the estate; moreover, the body was conveyed from Salisbury to Devonport at public expense. As regards the last part of the question, no distinction is made between death on active service and death due to a flying accident. The regulations were very fully considered when they were drawn up and I regret that I cannot agree that the present case proves that they call for amendment.

THE WASH (RECLAMATION).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state how many men it is proposed to employ in the reclamation of a portion of the Wash; and how many of these will be drawn from the ranks of the unemployed?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Buxton): It is anticipated that not less than 200 men will be required. They will be entirely drawn from the ranks of the unemployed with the exception of certain skilled men.

Mr. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the unemployed he anticipates being able to use on this work?

Mr. BUXTON: This work will be completed in the course of two years. Until it is further advanced it is impossible to say how many will be employed.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that the unemployed proposals of the Government are a wash-out?

Sir K. WOOD: When will these men begin work?

Mr. BUXTON: The surveyors are proceeding as quickly as possible, and are not waiting until the autumn to begin.

Sir K. WOOD: Will it be months, weeks or years?

Sir F. HALL: Is this one of the many important schemes which the Government are contemplating?

Captain EDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the estimated expenditure upon this scheme?

Mr. BUXTON: About £32,000.

Viscount CURZON: Is this to be the main plank of the Government's platform in the forthcoming Election?

Major WHELER: What will be the rates of pay for these men? Will they be the agricultural rates of the locality, or what?

Mr. BUXTON: It is not yet decided

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. T. SMITH: 55
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information showing that the continuance of the present series of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is in any way due to delay or failure on the part of farmers to report cases of the disease?

Locality of Outbreak.
Date of Confirmation of Disease.
Period of Delay.
Number of other outbreaks resulting from direct or indirect contact.





Days.



Burton-on-Trent, Staffs.
…
24th April, 1924
37
1


Oswestry, Salop
…
1st May, 1924
7
3


Biddulph, (Congleton) Staffs
…
12th May, 1924
14
1


Grantham, Lines., Kesteven
…
17th May, 1924
6
—


Newton Mearns, Ayrshire
…
18th May, 1924
10
1


Beith, Ayrshire
…
16th May, 1924
3
—


Whitburn, Linlithgowshire
…
21st May, 1924
11
—

Dr. CHAPPLE: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the experimental treatment of foot-and-mouth disease which broke out in the herd of cattle belonging to Mr. S. C. Lindsay, of Aitkenbrae, in Ayrshire, was successful; and, if so, whether any recognition of the fact was sent to Mrs. Thomson, of Annan, who provided the remedy?

Mr. BUXTON: Yes, Sir; the animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease on the premises of Mr. S C. Lindsay, of

Mr. BUXTON: I regret to say that the Ministry is experiencing considerable difficulties in consequence of delay in report-mg case of foot-and-mouth disease. Seven recent cases, particulars of which I will have circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, have been brought to the notice of the Ministry, in which delays in reporting foot-and-mouth disease have occurred since the 24th April, 1929. Six of these are new centres of diseases in areas for some time previously apparently free from infection. The delays in reporting varied from three days to 37 days, and the outbreaks in these seven cases were responsible for six further outbreaks. It is significant that these delays have occurred notwithstanding the serious nature of the disease and the widespread knowledge of its symptoms which must now prevail in consequence of the unprecedented magnitude of the recent outbreaks which have occurred in Great Britain.

Mr. ACLAND: Can my right hon. Friend take action in consequence of the serious delay in some of these cases?

Mr. BUXTON: Proceedings are being taken in one case, and others are under consideration.

Following are the particulars:

Aitkenbrae, ere treated at the request of the owner by a lady who was not, I understand, a qualified veterinary surgeon. There are many remedies known to my Department for the treatment of foot-and-mouth disease. There have been other cases in which it has been decided to isolate affected animals, and in which the owner has been given facilities for the treatment of the animals if he so desires, subject to proper precautions as regards
the disinfection of the person so employed on leaving the premises. There was, therefore, no occasion which called for special recognition on the part of the Ministry, but we are aware of the services which have been rendered in these cases.

Dr. CHAPPLE: Was the treatment successful? Was there any greater success attending this treatment than other treatments?

Mr. BUXTON: I understand that the treatment was successful, and that it has been successful in some other cases.

Dr. CHAPPLE: is the Ministry doing anything to extend the treatment to other cases?

Mr. BUXTON: In selected cases this has already been considered.

FISH PRICES, HULL.

Mr. B. SMITH: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that prime fish is being sold as low as a farthing a pound in Hull for making cattle food, and that this practice has the effect of reducing the earnings of fishermen and removes the possibility of cheap fish to poor people; and whether he is prepared to take such action as will ensure that all fresh fish shall be placed upon the markets and thus reach the consumer?

Mr. BUXTON: I am aware that fish is occasionally landed at the principal ports in such quantity that it is difficult to dispose of all of it for human food. Sometimes, also, especially during the summer months, its quality is such as to make its disposal for food purposes undesirable. In such cases, the surplus fish is usually sold to the local fish meal and manure works, or, if there are no such works or other corresponding means of disposal, is taken out to sea again and thrown overboard. I have no information which would suggest that any fish, which could properly be described as prime fish, has been sold at such a price as the question suggests. All fish is sold at the ports in open auction. I have no authority to take such action as is suggested in the second part of the question, even if such action were practicable.

Mr. B. SMITH: Is it not a fact that the organisation of buyers in the fish markets are definitely limiting the amount of fish to be purchased and keeping the prices up, and, as the fishermen are paid on a share basis, automatically bringing down the fishermen's wages to such an extent that the men are often in debt as a result of a trip and cannot the State undertake to sell the fish to the people?

Mr. BUXTON: There is no reason to doubt the facts given by my hon. Friend, but under the present law the action he suggests is not possible.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: Will the Government consider if it is desirable to provide cheap food for oxen?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Ts the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the whole of the trouble is caused by the difference between the price given to the fishermen and the price charged to the consumer, and will he look into that matter?

Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government to alter the law so as to bring it in accordance with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith)?

Mr. BUXTON: It is beyond my scope to say.

Mr. AYLES: Is it not a fact that the high railway rates make the widespread distribution of this surplus fish almost impossible?

Mr. BUXTON: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

AUSTRALIAN BUTTER.

Mr. LAMB: 57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that in an official broadsheet it is claimed that none but Australian butter is used in the various restaurants in the grounds at the British Empire Exhibition, and that the fact is advertised on every menu on every restaurant table; and, if so, whether this discrimination against home produce was sanctioned by his Department?

Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply.
I am much obliged to the hon. Member for calling my attention to this matter, into which I am making inquiries. As soon as they are complete, I will communicate with him.

WAGES.

Mr. BAKER: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the wages paid by Messrs. J. Lyons and Company, Limited, at the British Empire Exhibition are such as would satisfy the conditions of the Fair Wages Clause?

Mr. LUNN: I have no information regarding the wages paid by Messrs. J. Lyons and Company, Limited, at the British Empire Exhibition. I may perhaps in this connection refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 26th May in answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. E. Harvey), and in which I alluded to the probable constitution of a works council to investigate such matters.

BRITISH FISHING INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture by what means help can be given to the British fishing industry, in view of its distressed condition and of the considerable Government grant which is being made for loans to Scottish herring fishers?

Mr. BUXTON: I do not think that the case of the Scottish herring fishermen and that of the British fishing industry are strictly comparable. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave on the 26th instant to the question addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member for the North-Western Division of Kingston-upon-Hull.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fishing industry in England is suffering partly from bad transport and partly from profiteering on the part of those who sell the fish, and will he set up a Committee on the lines of the Linlithgow Committee to look into this question?

Mr. LUMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is in accordance with Free Trade principles to
subsidise Scottish fishermen in order to compete with English fishermen?

Mr. HARBORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to grant an extension of the Trade Facilities Act to those who are most deserving? In the case of my Own town—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—as the Minister is already aware, there are fleets of vessels no: employed, and by such means he would employ the men on the fishing boats.

Mr. FERGUSON: Are the Liberals asking for Protection?

TELEPHONES (RURAL DISTRICTS).

Major MOULTON: 60.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in order to enable farmers to conduct their business to the best advantage, he will consider whether the high telephone rates often charged in rural districts can be reduced?

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. New rural exchanges are established and rural party lines provided very much below cost price, where the necessary minimum of subscribers is forthcoming. In other cases, the charges are based upon the costs incurred, and in sparsely-populated areas these are necessarily somewhat high. My right hon. Friend regrets that he does not at present see his way to recommend any relaxation of the conditions under which the special rates are applied, in view of the heavy loss which would result.

Mr. FOOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of relaxing the rules, having regard to the fact that where the need is greatest the cost is greatest?

Mr. PARKINSON: I will convey that to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

THORNE BRIDGE (DONCASTER).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the authorities have yet come to an agreement with regard to the proposed bridge at Thorne, near Doncaster; if so, when the work of construction is likely to commence and will he take steps to speed up this work which is necessary for the facilitation of
road transport and the general convenience of this fact developing district

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. H. Gosling): Proposals for the reconstruction of the two bridges at Thorne are now assuming definite form after prolonged negotiations, and I hope the work will be put in hand without further delay.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring whatever pressure he can for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of this work?

MANCHESTER AND OLDHAM RAILWAY.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport how the work of electrifying the railway between Manchester and Oldham on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway is progressing; and when does he estimate the job will be complete?

Mr. GOSLING: I understand from the railway company that the specifications in connection with the electrification scheme to which the hon. Member refers have not yet been completed. The latter part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this project is definitely abandoned?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a much simpler matter to electrify the House than to electrify a railway?

Mr. HANNON: Has not the London, Midland and Scottish Railway responded in every way to the representations that have been made?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PRICES.

Sir K. WOOD: 63.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether there is any substantial difference in the price charged to the public for coal by coal merchants and cooperative societies, respectively?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): So far as my information goes there does not seem to be much difference between the prices charged by merchants and co-operative societies in London, though in some provincial districts the co-operative prices are rather lower than the merchants. But it must of course be remembered that the profits made by co-
operative societies are returned to their members in the form of dividends.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the hon. Gentleman ascertained that in certain districts in Yorkshire the co-operative societies are charging 7s. 9d. a ton more than the ordinary traders?

Mr. SHINWELL: I have no such information, and if the hon. Member will read the report of the proceedings of the co-operative societies he will find that that is not so.

Mr. W. A. JENKINS: Is it not a fact that the price charged for coal by the co-operative societies is cheaper than the price charged by the merchants because the societies do not pay their proper share of taxes, and will he take steps to amend that unjust law?

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: In reference to the profits of co-operative societies, is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some of these societies some of the profits are used to finance Socialist candidates?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am aware that the profits are used for many purposes. I have not made any inquiries of the coal merchants as to how their profits are used. Such information as I have been able to obtain will be published.

COKE (SALE TO PUBLIC).

Sir K. WOOD: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to frauds in the sale of coke, and that in a number of cases the public do not get the quantities they pay for and expect to receive; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): No recent representations on this subject have been made to my Department, though I have seen Press references to it. Any definite information that may be submitted as to the practices alleged will be carefully considered. I may add that a number of local authorities have acquired powers to deal with the sale of coke with a. view to the prevention of fraud.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the hon. Gentleman received a report from the London County Council calling attention to this
scandal, and does he not intend to do anything in the matter?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I imagine that if the London County Council have any representations to make they will make them.

ROYALTIES, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. T. SMITH: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of owners

—
Royalties of Coal in the County of York, assessed to Mineral Rights Duty, up to 28th May, 1924.


Estimated Number of Royalty Owners.
Estimated aggregate Royalties, before deduction of Income Tax.


Year 1922–23:


£


Owners in receipt of less than £3,000
…
703
255,300


Owners in receipt of £3,000 or more
…
49
447,000


Total
…
752
702,300


Year 1923–24:
…




Owners in receipt of less than £3,000
…
644
230,900


Owners in receipt of £3,000 or more
…
61
577,300


Total
…
705
808,200


The term "royalty" includes the gross rental value of coal assessed to Mineral Rights Duty on working proprietors.

Mr. LUMLEY (on behalf of Sir VICTOR WARRENDER): 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount received in Income Tax and Super-tax from the owners of coal royalties in the County of York for the years 1922–23 and 1923–24, respectively?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I regret that it is not possible to earmark any part of the produce of the Income Tax as contributed by any particular source of income. The amount of Income Tax and Super-tax borne by any individual depends, not upon the particular sources from which his income is derived, but upon his total income, his family responsibilities and other factors.

FORESTRY (GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES).

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 67 and 68.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) in view of the fact that an
of coal royalties in the County of York; the number receiving £3,000 and over per year, and the number receiving below £3,000 before deduction of Income Tax; and the total amount paid to such owners during the years 1922–23 and 1923–24?

Mr. SNOWDEN: As the answer is in tabular form I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

appreciable number of men for the Colonial forest service are trained at Cambridge and that they are not chosen until their course of education is complete, whether it is intended that the University of Cambridge shall receive a grant of £300 per annum from the Colonial Office on exactly the same footing as Oxford?

(2) asked the right hon. Member for Tiverton, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, in view of the fact that the Forestry Commission has made a grant of £5,000 per year for five years to the Oxford School of Forestry, whether a guarantee can be given that students chosen as probationers for Indian and Colonial forest services shall still continue to have the option of choosing their own centre of education in forestry, and that there shall be no preference shown to Oxford to the detriment of the other universities at which men have previously been trained in forestry for the Indian and Colonial services?

Mr. ACLAND (Forestry Commissioner): I have been asked to take over the first of these questions. My reply will incorporate the answer to the second question on the same subject addressed to me by the hon. Member. The Colonial Office at present make no grants to British Universities in respect of forestry education. The Forestry Commissioners have no responsibility for the selection and training of Indian and Colonial Forest probationers, but make grants of £500 per annum both to Oxford and Cambridge Universities in respect of the degree and diploma courses for forestry. In addition the Commissioners and the Secretary of State for the Colonies are collaborating with the University of Oxford to set up an Imperial Forestry Institute at Oxford as recommended by the British Empire Forestry Conference and endorsed by the Imperial Economic Conference. The functions of the institute will be distinct from those of the existing schools of forestry, which remain unaltered, and will be to provide post-graduate training for selected probationers, special courses for senior officers in the various Forest Services, and, where required, the training of specialists in the methods of forestry research. It is proposed that the Forestry Commissioners and the Colonial Governments concerned shall contribute £2,000 and £3,000 respectively towards the annual cost of the institute.

Mr. MILLS: In choosing the students under this particular scheme, will any consideration be shown to children from the elementary schools as distinct from Oxford and Cambridge?

Mr. RAWLINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks
whether a guarantee can be given that students chosen as probationers for Indian and Colonial forest services shall still continue to have the option of choosing their own centre of education in forestry, and that there shall be no preference shown to Oxford to the detriment of the other universities at which men have previously been trained in forestry for the Indian and Colonial services?

Mr. MACPHERSON: is the right hon. Gentleman going to give a grant to the other Universities, such as Edinburgh, which has specialised for many years in forestry?

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider Dublin University in this connection?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: And the Welsh Universities as well?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it possible to do better than Oxford?

Mr. ACLAND: I am able to carry in my mind only the first three supplementary questions. With regard to candidates coming from elementary schools, we would, of course, wish to, and, I think, should, encourage it in vary possible way. No conceivable differentiation could possibly be made. against thorn, at any rate. With regard to preference in connection with Indian and Colonial probationers, there will be no alteration whatever in allowing thorn the option of a centre for their forestry education. This new Imperial Institute is for a different purpose. With regard to Edinburgh, it has already had in a very large capital grant which Oxford and Cambridge have not had; that is to say, it has had the equivalent in capital of what Oxford and Cambridge are getting in annual grants.

Sir GEORGE BERRY: Who made the grant?

Mr. ACLAND: The grant was made by the Government just before the Forestry Commission was set up, and it is paid out of the forestry funds at the disposal of the Government.

Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no preference is extended to Buskin College?

Mr. RAWLINSON: In reference to Question No. 67, will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part which asks
whether it is intended that the University of Cambridge shall receive a grant of £300 per annum from the Colonial Office on exactly the same footing as Oxford?

Mr. ACLAND: No grant, was made from the Colonial Office to Oxford, and, therefore, the question of Cambridge getting a grant from the Colonial Office did not arise.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS).

Mr. R. JACKSON: 69.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, owing to their active interest in the provision of houses under subsidy schemes, a number of useful members of
borough and urban district councils have been compelled reluctantly to relinquish their membership of such councils in order that they may become eligible for such subsidy and, if so, whether he will make provision in his Housing Bill for the removal of this disability, which is thus depriving public authorities of the services of public-spirited individuals?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. A. Greenwood): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Bed-wellty on the 13th instant.

EX-RANKER OFFICERS.

Mr. AYLES: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House of the extent to which his Department have carried out the recommendations of the Committee on the Claims of ex-Ranker Officers?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Lawson): As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Eastbourne on the 20th instant, the findings of the Committee have been accepted in their entirety. Action is being taken regarding the claims under paragraphs 29 and 32 of the Report. A small number have been received and examined. Applicants who do not satisfy the conditions of these paragraphs have been informed; those who satisfy the conditions are also being informed and their claims are being transmitted to the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital. Chelsea, for the assessment and award of the appropriate rate of pension.

Mr. AYLES: In any claims that are made and turned down is there any kind of tribunal set up in order to decide whether the claims can be allowed or not?

Mr. HANNON: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him what right the hon. Gentleman opposite has to speak for ex-ranker officers?

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. SPEAKER: He has as much right as any other hon. Member of the House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On the question of inuendoes, you, Mr.
Speaker, made me withdraw a remark the other day.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member did not set a very good example. I think my reply in the present case was sufficient.

NAVAL REVIEW (ADMIRALTY YACHT "ENCHANTRESS").

Mr. LAMBERT: 73.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to recommission the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress"; and, if so, for what purpose?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): Yes, Sir; for a period of In days, in order to allow the Board of Admiralty officially to attend the review of the Fleet in July, and carry out an official inspection of the naval establishments at Portsmouth.

Mr. LAMBERT: How comes it that a Labour Government requires a yacht which was actually put out of commission by the Coalition Government?

Mr. AMMON: The Labour Government do not require the yacht, but the Board of Admiralty require the yacht in order to carry out certain duties.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the time has come to reconsider the question of the Admiralty yacht, and is it not the universal experience of First Lords that the service of the yacht was a great contribution to the efficiency of the Department?

Mr. AMMON: Largely I agree with the question put by the right hon. Gentleman, but of course he will understand that I cannot give here the opinion of the Sea Lords.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I asked the hon. Gentleman for the opinion of the Gov. einment and not of the Sea Lords. Would the Government not reconsider the matter?

Mr. AMMON: I have answered that question in my main reply. The Government have reconsidered it, and they con rider that the yacht is absolutely essential for this particular review.

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any indication
of what it is likely to cost to restore and refuel this ship after it has been out of commission for 18 months?

Mr. AMMON: The total cost involved will be £1,100for work and fuel and stores.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he is prepared to take this matter back, in view of the fact that even the small sum of money he has stated is necessary for other work that could be undertaken?

Mr. AMMON: I can assure the hon. Member that this is a very much cheaper method than if the Board of Admiralty went down to the review by other means.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not a matter of general experience that all the duties of the Board of Admiralty can be performed much cheaper without a yacht? Will not the bringing forward of this yacht result in greatly increased expenditure?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that the Board of Admiralty are unable to travel by train, but must have sea transport? Could they not be well accommodated on board one of the men-of-war?

Mr. AMMON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not think that they cannot travel by train. They go by train to that point beyond which a train can no longer take them.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: How many Ministers are there on the Board of Admiralty?

Mr. AMMON: : That does not arise out of the question.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Where is the work of re-conditioning to be done?

CABDRIVER'S LICENCE (APPLICATION).

Mr. B. SMITH: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of William Henry Preedy, of 16, Bedford Street, Walworth, S.E., who is, seeking to become a cabdriver in the Metropolitan area, and who received his first requisition in March; and whether he can state the reason why Preedy has not heard further on the matter?

Mr.HENDERSON: I have inquired into the facts of this case and I understand that the Commissioner of Police is not satisfied that the applicant is, qualified to hold a licence.

Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman state on what grounds it has been so held?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. SMITH: Surely, Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to know on what grounds the licence hats, been refused, and surely this is the place where the Minister ought to reply.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister is the judge of that matter. It does not rest with me.

Mr. SMITH: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal what is the business for next week?

Mr. CLYNES: On Monday, the Agricultural Wages Bill, Second Reading; and the County Courts Bill, Report and Third Reading.

Tuesday: Housing—Money Resolution in Committee of the Whole House.

Wednesday: Report of Supplementary Estimates for League of Nations, Air Services, and Fishery Board for Scotland; China Indemnity (Application) Bill, Second Reading; Report of Housing Money Resolution.

Thursday: Small Debts (Scotland) Bill, Report and Third Reading; Pensions Increase Money Resolution in Committee of the Whole House; Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill, Second Reading; Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Bill, Second Reading.

I would like to say that the main Government proposals for housing will be contained in the Housing Bill, which will be brought in on the completion of the Money Resolution. Supplementary proposals, which, however, form an integral part of the Government housing scheme, will be brought forward in a Bill to prevent excessive charges for building
materials and to make provision for securing an adequate supply of such materials and for other purposes incidental thereto. It is proposed to introduce this Bill next week in time to enable it to be circulated to Members at the same time as the main Housing Bill.

Mr. BALDWIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on last Thursday, he said the Agricultural Wages Bill would not be taken before Whitsuntide?

Mr. CLYNES: I do not think I definitely said that. My recollection is that I gave a conditional answer.

Mr. BALDWIN: The right hon. Gentleman was asked by an hon. Member,
When is it the intention of the Government to introduce the Agricultural Wages Bill?

To that the right hon. Gentleman replied:
Not before the Whitsuntide Recess.

Mr. CLYNES: Of course, the Leader of the Opposition well knows that intentions in these matters have occasionally to be varied, but, so far as we know, there has been no objection made to the Bill being taken next week.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What is the objection?

Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the Minister of Health, in introducing the Financial Resolution, give a full outline of his housing scheme, and does not the right hon. Gentleman see how exceedingly inconvenient it would be to discuss the mere financial details without knowing the scheme which is to be the foundation of those details?

Mr. CLYNES: Certainly. The procedure I have outlined is the one we were advised to take, and I hope Mr. Speaker be able to permit that course to be taken.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would it be possible to have the Bill printed beforehand? In a complicated matter of this kind the right hon. Gentleman must see the difficulty of discussing a housing scheme on a Financial Resolution.

Mr. CLYNES: I am not certain that the Government could have the Bill printed before the Money Resolution is disposed of.

Mr. HOPE: Would it not be possible to print the Bill as a White Paper?

Mr. MASTERMAN: If the Money Resolution is not to be in Committee of Ways and Means, but in Committee of the Whole House, surely every precedent guides us to the belief that we should see the Bill before the Money Resolution is taken. Is it not the case that Bills are circulated with the Money Resolution printed in the Bill and then the Money Resolution is taken, unless it arises in Committee of Ways and Means?

Mr. CLYNES: I hesitate to express a definite opinion upon a point which is one of the history of procedure, but we shall do our best to place the fullest information before the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. E. BROWN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these financial Papers will be circulated for the use of Members, as promised by the Minister of Health? He promised them when the Bill was introduced, and I want to know whether the Papers will be laid before the Resolution is introduced. Surely we cannot discuss the Resolution without the Papers.

Mr. CLYNES: The Resolution will be on the Order Paper to-morrow, and, as I have said, I think the answer to the last question is covered in my previous reply that there will be no delay in circulating the information.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to circulate it at the end of this week, so that Members can have a reasonable opportunity of considering it?

Mr. CLYNES: We will take, in this matter, whatever is the usual course, and the information will be circulated as speedily as possible.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance and help in this matter, Mr. Speaker? You will realise, I am sure, the great desirability of the House having the fullest details of the housing scheme before discussing the financial question, and would it not be possible for the Bill to be introduced and read the First time, and then for the Financial Resolution to he taken in Committee of the whole House?

Mr. SPEAKER: A draft Bill was submitted to me, and I felt obliged to rule that it was so largely a money matter that it must originate in Committee of the Whole House, and that is the reason for the procedure now announced. It is not one of those cases where the finance is merely a matter of one Clause, in which the Resolution can be taken after Second Reading of the Bill. In this case, it is almost wholly finance, and the proper procedure is that just announced by the Deputy-Leader of the House.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Would it not be in accordance with precedent that the Bill should be circulated as a White Paper before the Financial Resolution is taken?

Mr. SPEAKER: There may be a precedent for that course. I cannot say it is a usual course, but it is a possible course, if the Government can adopt it.

Sir K. WOOD: Inasmuch as this draft Bill is in existence and has already been submitted to you, Mr. Speaker, why cannot it be available to Members of this House at once?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member must not presume on what I have said. Where the opinion of the Chair is taken on a point of Order, it is customary to submit to it a draft. I do not know in the least whether the form of the Bill shown to me is the form in which it will be presented to the House. It may have been a preliminary draft. All that I had to do was to rule on what was submitted to me.

Mr. PRINGLE: Cannot the Deputy-Leader of the House arrange to have the Bill circulated as a White Paper?

Mr. CLYNES: I think that can be done; but I cannot positively commit myself to it. If it be practicable, it shall be done.

Viscount CURION: If the Government happen to be in office after Whitsuntide, can the Deputy-Leader of the House say whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing Lord Lee's Report on the Indian Civil Service?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble. Lord has made his own question hypothetical.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: In regard to Thursday's business, the Lead Paint Bill
comes last on the list. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is very controversial, and that there is sure to be a big Debate on it?

Mr. CLYNES: We anticipate that on Thursday there will be a disposition to dispose of more business than usual.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: Is it not a fact that the London County Council (Money) Bill is down for next Tuesday at 8.15, and will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is not allowed to interfere with the discussion on the Housing Bill?

Mr. CLYNES: That is not the case.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. AYLES: I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of Order and procedure which appears to me to be of very great importance to the Members of this House. I received a letter from a very responsible body in the city of Bristol stating that a very serious state of affairs had arisen with regard to the enormous number of people affected by threatened eviction orders. I wrote to you, asking to be allowed to put a private notice question to one of the Ministers. You replied to the effect that, in your opinion—and I accept entirely your ruling with regard to that—it was impossible for me to put a private notice question, but that I could put a question in the ordinary way. I took that advice, and put a question in the ordinary way, whereupon I was told by you, through your assistants, that such a question could not be put in this House, because the Evictions Bill, which would very largely allay the evil that is causing this grave unrest in Bristol, had left this House, and is now in another place. I want to ask you as to what method Members of this House can adopt in order to interrogate Ministers belonging to a Government that has adopted a Bill that has been passed through all its stages in this House, and is now in another place?

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the hon. Member's first question, I understand he accepts my decision, and, therefore, I need say nothing about that. With regard to his second point, I am not aware of the form in which he submitted his question to the Table. I will
make inquiries. and see if any alteration can be made in it. But, broadly speaking, it is not in order to ask a question here referring to the proceedings in another place. It may be possible for it to be done in some other way, and if the hon. Member will consult me, I will see if that can be arranged.

Mr. AYLES: Thank you very much.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Walter Elliot Elliot, esquire, M.C., Burgh of Glasgow (Kelvingrove Division).

ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,
School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill,
Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill,
St. Andrews Links Order Confirmation Bill,
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the regulation of the manufacture, sale, and importation of vaccines, sera, and other therapeutic substances." [Therapeutic Substances Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to make provision with respect to the number of councillors of boroughs and Metropolitan boroughs and matters incidental thereto." [Borough Councillors (Alteration of Number) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision as to the rates, dues, tolls, and charges leviable at the harbours, docks, and piers at Folkestone, Whitstable, and Newhaven." [Southern Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled. "An Act to make inquiries, and see if any alteration tolls, and charges leviable at certain of the harbours, docks, and piers of the Great Western Railway Company and at the Fishguard Harbour of the Fish-guard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company." [Great Western Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision as to the rates, dues, tolls, and charges leviable at certain of the harbours, docks, and piers of the London and North Eastern Railway Company." [London and North Eastern Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision as to the rates, dues, tolls, and charges leviable at certain of the harbours, docks, and piers of the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Company." [London, Midland. and Scottish Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords.]

Southern Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],

Great Western Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],

London and North Eastern Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART MENTS ESTIMATES, 1924–25.

CLASS VII.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £8,560,339, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and to Special Schemes, and Payments to Associations and Local Education Authorities for administration under the Unemployment Insurance Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also Expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations), including a Grant-in-Aid."—[Note: £5,500,000 has been, voted on account.]

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I beg to move "That Item A (1)—[Salaries, Wages, and Allowances]—be reduced by £100."
4.0 P.M
I move this reduction in respect of the salary of the Minister of Labour, and I rise to continue the Debate which began last Thursday and proceeded amid some vicissitudes until the Adjournment of the House upon that evening. We then had an experience which I suppose the House of Commons has never hitherto enjoyed. We were the witnesses of a spectacle in which the Government refused to allow the Committee to vote upon Supply for which they themselves had asked. Most Governments desire to get their Supply through Committee with the greatest. possible expedition, but, apparently, that is not so in the case of this Government, although they profess themselves to be unable to find time for many of the schemes with regard to which many of the people who sit behind them show the greatest possible ardour. One wonders
whether they were reluctant to part with this topic, which they have made their own in a very peculiar sense, and around which there hang the most priceless gems of Ministerial rhetoric. In the midst of much which is obscure one, of course, can only guess. Might it be, for example, that momentarily they had some distrust of the patient. oxen? If that was their motive in taking the course they did, then, indeed, they were unduly suspicious, for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr.Masterman)—unmuzzled as he was entitled to be, according to the scriptural injunction—gave the Government a most abject assurance that he would continue, for that evening at least, to tread out the corn.
Perhaps these speculations are all wide of the mark. It may be that the Government only wanted a little more time to produce their scheme. Perhaps to-day we have at last arrived at the great moment. To-day, who knows, the Minister of Labour may at last perform his famous conjuring trick! What about the Liberal party? They condemned, in the most strident tones, the failure and the incompetence of the Government with regard to unemployment, and then they voted with them in the Lobby. There are unkind people who say that the Liberal party in these days have departed from the new God-given principle of self-determination and have taken as a substitute the good old instinct of self-preservation. But, however that may be, it is all of no avail. The day of slaughter is not averted. I t is only postponed. After a recent by-election in Glasgow, the living emblem of which we have seen to-day—

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Trained in the Fabian Society.

Sir R. HORNE: Well, he has had the sense to leave it since. It does not require any second sight to visualise the Leader of the patient oxen in the immediate future gazing somewhat mournfully on his desiccated brethren, and, in the words of a famous advertisement, muttering, "Alas! my poor brothers." But the great problem of unemployment is still with us, and the Minister of Labour is still searching for his remedy. I remember somebody long ago describing the study of metaphysics as
a man hunting in a dark room for a black hat which is not there.
I think in these modern days we might vary that definition and suggest
a Minister searching in a black hat for an elusive quadruped which was never there.
The Minister, in spite of all his efforts, has up to now given no satisfaction, and, indeed, the patience both of this House and of the country is becoming exhausted. The number of unemployed is still a very large figure. It is over one million. The Minister claims that it has been somewhat reduced during the last year, and he says that that has been caused by the foreign policy of the Prime Minister. He says that the malignant influence that. previously existed is now changed for the benevolent gestures of the Prime Minister. I shall argue that matter upon the proper occasion, but should like to point out, in order to prick the complacency of the right hon. Gentleman, that the figures of reduction last year under the auspices of the malignant influence were rather larger than they have been in the present year.
But I do not want merely to chop figures in the matter.[Interruption.] I could do so if hon. Members wanted me, but I will not delay the Committee with details of that kind I want to direct attention, just for a moment, to the kind of professions which Ministers made upon this subject before they occupied office. I know that it has already been done to a considerable length, and I do not want to weary the Committee by repetition. [Interruption.] I know very well that Members on the Labour Benches do not like it, but it is appropriate that both the House and the country should realise exactly what it was that they said they would do. These were the professions upon which they seduced the electors who voted for them. They were the people with the remedy, and it is an interesting speculation how a very small turnover of votes would have put Liberals in seats where Labour men now sit, and would have put the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) in the place where the Present Primo Minister sits. It is a fascinating thing to re-write history with an important factor changed, but it is a very unprofitable matter, and I do not propose to pursue that particular activity.
I desire to point out that the Government told us that all our schemes were inadequate, that all our motives were bad, that we proposed to buy off discontent, and that we were giving doles where we ought to give work. They poured scorn on every effort which we made to relieve the great tragedy from which the country to-day is suffering. I wish to remind the Lord Privy Seal of the speech which he made when I was Minister of Labour and was myself struggling with this problem. In a Debate—as far as I can recollect it was in October, 1919—he said:
Simple as it may seem, our solution for unemployment is to give work to people who may want it.
The problem to-day is just as simple as it was then; in fact, it is rather simpler, because there are fewer people unemployed. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman produce the plan which was to relieve all this distress? He went further. He preached me a sermon upon the pernicious effect of doles. He said that whether the recipient was rich or poor, nothing was so demoralising as to give people money for nothing. What are the Government doing to-day? They have just produced a Bill whose main result will be to stereotype and render continuous the giving of doles for nothing.
Let me take the Prime Minister. I read with interest a speech which he made in the house at the time when he induced the House to believe that my right hon. Friend who sits beside me (Mr. Baldwin) should no longer remain at the head of the Government. He said that one of the chief reasons the late Government were no longer entitled to hold their place was that they had not sufficient force to confront the great problem of unemployment, and he used the expression that it would end in a more energetic effort being made by somebody else. Somebody else now sits in the highest place of the mighty. Where is the force and the energy? it I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman could display it, but he seems to me at the present time to have his eyes so fixed on the foreign horizon that he is stumbling over his own doormat. It may be said that the Government have not had time. That excuse has repeatedly been put forward for them, but the Members of this House are very well aware that no
such excuse as that can be accepted. I well remember the President of the Board of Trade in August, 1923, claiming that all the Labour plans for relieving unemployment were cut and dried. He said they had been there since 1921, and he produced a document and assured us there were actually 45 pages of plans. 45 pages! Could any problem be so recalcitrant that it would not yield to the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman in 45 pages? Why, he would cure unemployment with a pamphlet, and he would settle the whole affairs of Europe with a tome!
What were the particular plans to which he referred? They were plans for electrification, schemes for railways and canals, suggestions about afforestation, and the reclamation of land—all kinds of things which we hear of in general terms from the right hon. Gentleman to-day, but all these things existed purely in the abstract, not a single one was reduced to a definite form. There was nothing in the concrete, not even a dock wall. Now, to-day, what is the position in which we find the Government? This great question of electrification upon which they laid so much stress and for which all their plans were prepared in the. year 1921, is thus dealt with by the Minister of Labour in the speech he made last Thursday. I hope the Committee will forgive me for dealing with this in some detail, because I have never seen a more abject explanation of the position in which the Government stand in relation to a problem of this kind. On electrification the right hon. Gentleman said:
Acting on the impulse of those ideas we are now thoroughly going into the whole question of the electrification of this country. The Electricity Commissioners during the last three years have done magnificent work"—
without any help from the present Government—
and the extent of the increase in electrical provision has been very marked.
It was done by private enterprise—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—by public utility societies, for which capital has been provided by private individuals—

The CHAIRMAN: I would appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to let the speaker be heard.

Sir R. HORNE: Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on:
But we are about to go into the whole question, and certainly shall not shirk any attempt properly to deal with the electrical problem of this country, if we are satisfied that we can do it with advantage to the country and help the unemployed, and serve the efficiency of the future. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1923; col. 2447, Vol. 173.]
Observe he is only about to go into the question. Then I come to the question of the Severn Barrage. What has been done with that? The right hon. Gentleman is sending engineers down to the Severn. I have seen many reports about the practicability of the Severn Barrage, but what is the Labour Minister doing at this date? The people who prepared the plans may not have been ready with the means, but the argument upon which the Government went to the country at the last Election was that they were prepared with plans to remedy these evils. What do we find to-day? That they are only beginning to make investigations. Let me take another example.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What happened to the Geddes Committee's Report?

Sir R. HORNE: The President of the Board of Trade told us that they were going to reclaim experimentally a small portion of land on the Wash. I understand that is going to keep 200 men employed for a number of years. He also said that other areas are being surveyed and, if the result of the experiment is favourable, then there will be plenty of work in that direction. Everything is hypothetical and based upon contingency. If I may vary an old saw I should say that if "if's" and "and's" can create employment there would be very little use for the Minister of Labour to tinker with it. The right hon. Gentleman. with an ebullience which surprised us, went on to say that there is nothing worse than making promises without an intention to carry them out. He continued:
I prefer not to make promises.
Why, the only reason they are in office to-day is to be found in the promises which they made in the last Election and which have been utterly falsified in practice! Various attempts have
been made by Ministers, under pressure, to explain what their positive remedy for unemployment is. Ministers have been very positive the only thing not positive is the remedy. But the President of the Board of Trade explained to us that it really means the inauguration of the whole Socialist programme. That really is their positive remedy. We are going to take the land from the people who own it. We are going to take the railways from the people who built them. We are going to take the mines from those who now own them. If these are the remedies we are to apply to this immediate problem, which is such a sore problem, I think it is perfectly clear that they are impracticable as an immediate relief for unemployment. I will venture to give the Committee a parallel if I may. There was an inquiry going on in a Scottish Court as to the death of a man, and the witness in the box exhibited an appearance as callous towards the incident that had taken place as sometimes the President of the Board of Trade does to British industry. The Judge, being somewhat surprised at his attitude, said to him, "Did you do nothing to resuscitate him," "Resuscitate him," answered the witness, "Och ay! we went through all his pockets." That appears to be the method of the President of the Board of Trade. That seems to he his remedy for the problem of unemployment.
I now wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister, and as I understand he is going to reply, perhaps we shall be able now to learn exactly where the Government stand on this important matter. It has been said that it is dangerous to write a book, but some Ministers, at any rate, have written pamphlets. I have here in my hand a document fathered by the Lord Privy Seal, which puts forward, as the only remedy for unemployment, the nationalisation of the land.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): What is that?

Sir R. HORNE: (handing the pamphlet across the Table): I do not think the Prime Minister ought to be startled by it. I have quite recently seen a pamphlet by him which put forward the same solutions for our difficulties, namely, that
all things ought to be nationalised, and first of all the system of banking. That is not all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has also committed himself in writing. Only the other day in a recent edition of one of his books I find he was advocating the nationalisation of banking. The right hon. Gentleman addressed the hankers in London a few evenings ago, and I heard his speech described by a. very orthodox financier as one of the finest and soundest financial speeches to which he had ever listened. But in that speech the right hon. Gentleman never mentioned his predilection for the nationalisation of banks, although one would have supposed that that would have interested his hearers more than any other topic he dealt with. It might have altered the view that he was a sound financier. I am not asking the question whether it is a good plan or a bad plan, but I do want the right hon. Gentleman to let us know what the policy of the Government is? The other day I heard a strong appeal made by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) to his Ministers to show some courage and some honesty. I second this appeal. I think we are entitled to know, or at any rate somebody is entitled to know, what the policy of the Government is, and not merely what it pretends to be. If that is the policy which they believe in as a remedy for these ills, they ought to have the courage to produce it in Parliament. Let us hear the arguments in its favour; if they are able to justify them, we shall be open to conviction. But I venture to say that it is deluding the people of this country who believe in policies of that kind to urge them through innumerable pamphlets that are issued from the Labour offices, and to be afraid to produce them before the House of Commons.
I turn now to the kind of matters to which this Government could have made some positive contribution. I have no wish to traverse the ground which was so ably covered the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman). He made a speech which is worthy of the very careful consideration of the country. The Government, it seems to me, have had an opportunity which has never been afforded to anybody else in the matter of housing. In the Election Manifesto of this Govern-
ment they put forward housing schemes as one of the means by which they were going to provide for unemployment. It has always seemed to me a tragical thing—this matter of housing. It is a matter which engaged the attention of the Coalition Government when my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was Prime Minister. You have a vast number of people unemployed in this country. You have a vast number of houses which are required for the people of this country, and in the building of which you would help to relieve unemployment. Towards the solution of that tragic problem a contribution was made by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Labour, the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara).
I have before me now a most generous scheme which he put before the labour unions of this country. Here is an industry sheltered from the blast of foreign competition. To-day it has got something like 60,000 people less at work than it had in 1913. Here, at least, is an opportunity for employing an extra 60,000 men, and not merely men employed in the actual building of the houses; for work of the kind gives work to the other people who have to provide the fittings and the equipment of the houses. It is impossible to say where the ramifications extend to in the matter of the labour which would be able in this case to find employment. Can you safeguard any other industry against the possibility of future times of unemployment more than in the case where the Minister of Health offers 15 years' continuous employment? What trade in this country has got in front of it 15 years' continuous employment? The conditions which were offered by my right hon. Friend certainly did not err on the side of meanness. They were, in my view, the most generous terms that were ever offered to any trade in this country. I took some small part in the negotiations. My right hon. Friend played an heroic part. But we felt we were always suspect by the Building Trade Unions.
Now, however, you have a Government which is not suspect by the trade unions. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have a chance which nobody else ever had. You can do something to justify your exist-
ence. What have you done? There is the miserable Report which the Minister of Health reads to us. All his negotiations result in is that men under 20 years of age will be allowed to become apprentices. How many people is that going to employ? It is no good telling us also that there are people to-day in the building trade unemployed. The reason they are unemployed is because you have failed to add to the ranks of the skilled men in the industries. Fill the positions in the key trades, and you will absorb all the unemployed. Once settled, you will afford work for everybody.

Mr. B. SMITH: What about the building rings?

Sir R. HORNE: What has that got to do with building labour. I am talking about the provision of employment for the people who are out of work. I am perfectly certain if what we had required in the War had been houses and not explosives you would have had a vast population engaged in providing these necessities for the people! Through your selfish policy you are doing two injuries to the country, robbing a vast number of people of employment, and putting many people into discomfort through inability to get houses. I say that the greatest reproach lies at the door of this Government to-day in their failure to deal with this problem. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who created it?"]
I turn just for a moment to another point on which, I think, the Government might have done something. They have talked about provision for the employment of women. We have heard of it ad nauseam. In spite of the ability of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, no advance has been made. I would venture to emphasise to the Minister of Labour the representations which have been already made to him by certain groups of women, especially in Scotland. I refer to the possibility of giving women work on the land. Experiments have been made, as he knows, in fruit farming, in poultry rearing, and, to a certain extent, in dairy farming, which have proved entirely successful. I would suggest to him that had he done something to extend the possibilities of such employment it would have afforded women work, and if he does that I think
it is not impossible that he may find a hutch even more productive than his hat.
The schemes which have been put forward by the Government are but continuations and additions to those of the late Governments. There is not a single new idea which has been brought before the country or before Parliament by this Government. The right hon. Gentleman, in the speech he made some time ago, talked about the great advantages in the way of employment which were going to be obtained by this Government from the fact, as he said, that they were endeavouring to make peace with 250,000,000 of people. If the right hon. Gentleman looks back at his speech—I have not got it here, but I will get it if need be— and I am talking from a very accurate recollection of the speech—he put that forward as one of the things that they were doing for unemployment. To-day I do not think he is so hopeful in regard to Russia. I notice in his speech last Thursday he switched on to Turkey as a factor in producing employment for this country. I venture to say that, so far as the negotiations with Russia take us to-day, he will get no more advantage to trade out of Russia than was arranged for in the Trade Agreement which was made by the Coalition Government in 1921. The record of this Government in the whole of this matter is, in fact, a dismal failure. After all their talk they have shown neither an understanding of the problem nor initiative in dealing with it. We complain of their pretensions before the Election. We complain of their hypocrisy since they have assumed office. We shall ask the Members of the House of Commons to-day by this Vote to pronounce their judgment and to show their dissatisfaction and disfavour.

The PRIME MINISTER: I listened with great expectation to the opening of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat, and as I listened I expected there would be a certain amount of what one may, with respect, call "political tub-thumping." But I hardly expected that the speech would begin with that, that it would go on with that, and that it would end with that. The right hon. Gentleman began by expressing the existence of a curiosity
in his mind as to why the Closure was not supported by the Government last week. I can assure hon. Members that had we anticipated the speech of the right hon. Gentleman then, that that would have been a sufficient reason for giving him an opportunity to deliver it this afternoon. The right hon Gentleman started with some imperfect references to Scripture in relation to my right hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Asquith). He proceeded to a still more imperfect reference to recent by-elections, where his selection was rather ominous, as he apparently got far more consolation in the unexpected pleasure of being able to hold a seat than in the more normal experience, as he will find, of having lost one.
In the exuberant recklessness of his statement the right hon. Gentleman told us that the opinion of the country was changing. It is, I quite agree With him. It is changing against him and his friends, and for a very good reason, as it appears to us. I shall take the words of the right hon. Gentleman rather than the substance of his speech, and I will assume that this Debate has really been raised for the purpose of helping the unemployed. He sneered at me for having my eyes fixed on foreign horizons. That is my business. I shall continue to do my work, and I shall do it with, at any rate, one conviction, that if only I can do what I should like to do, it will be one of the most substantial contributions to the solution, of the present state of unemployment that anybody could make. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman has made a fairly good partisan attack upon the Government. When, however, I remember all the resources left as remnants from the right hon. Gentleman and his friends when we came in four months ago, I am almost inclined to come to the conclusion that they were careful to leave bare the cupboard so that it would be possible, after four months of changed Government, to make such attacks at least possible.
I may say, parenthetically, that when the right hon. Gentleman was addressing the electors asking them for their votes, he did not talk about £38,000,000, but about £100,000,000. But we will see about that. I submit that the Conservative Opposition has raised this matter mainly for ordinary partisan purposes and with no intention whatever of
contributing towards a solution of the problem. Take the position. Hon. Members opposite blame us for what we said when we were in opposition. Will hon. Members remember that they have not only a record in opposition, but that they have a record of responsibility as a Government, and that not merely their words but their deeds are available to enable us to make up our minds as to what the effect of a change of Government would be so far as the unemployed are concerned? When we took office the insurance paid was ineffective, and there were gaps in it; there was uncovenanted benefit in it, and there was imperfect payments for women and children in it, and one of the first. things we had to do was to change all that and make unemployment insurance something that had some relation to its responsibilities to the men and women and families affected.
The situation is perfectly clear. Everybody must know that if our election addresses and our manifestoes were read with the care which seems to be indicated by certain quotations and limited sentences, it must have been seen that one of the pledges the Labour party made was that in dealing with unemployment two things had to be remembered: one was work and the other was maintenance. There is no doubt about that. That was in our pledges and our election addresses. Maintenance was dealt with first of all for the simple reason that in the treatment of the gaps, in the treatment of uncovenanted benefit, the only question concerned was the state of the fund and the amount of the responsibility that certain insurance rates would bear. That was examined and reported upon by the actuaries, and was translated without delay into legislation. That is the first pledge maintained.
It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman is never tired of reminding us, that we do not believe that the present system of disorganised capitalism is going to be the permanent form in which society is to express itself economically. What is the deduction drawn by hon. Members opposite from that? Apparently they imagine that if one holds that view the first thing one has got to do is to turn it into an Act of Parliament in four months. They said exactly the same thing within a week of our coming into
office, but that is not our method and we have declared it again and again. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly protesting against the revolutionary methods of Bolshevism, if they had any conception of a large reconstruction of social relations on a moral basis, the only way they could set about it according to their own confession is to become Bolshevists and turn everything upside down within four months. We said, and I repeat it, that when public opinion considers the question I feel perfectly convinced it will make large changes in the nature of our social system, but whilst those changes are being made the way it is going to come about is not by a Government sitting here producing half-a-dozen, twenty or one hundred Bills in a, month or two and saying, "Before we came in we had one state of society and after we came in we find another state of society." The thing is absolutely absurd and that sort of error underlies nine-tenths of the attacks that are being made upon us now.
In that charming intervention of the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor)—to whose speech I listened with delighted interest—she asked what was the use of capital under Socialism. I think that is a statement of the position which answers so much of the criticism which I agree is quite honestly and seriously made upon us Because we have said that a great change of society is necessary in order finally to solve the unemployed problem and because we have not made that within four months we are accused of having broken our pledges to the electors. Another statement we have made is this: We have said that you can tinker with unemployment, you can make insurance more effective than it is, and you can deal with it temporarily. but in the end the only thing that is of real and healthy value is a normal condition of trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] By those hearty cheers I can understand that hon. Members opposite have not read our election addresses, and I am afraid right hon. Gentlemen opposite have only read them in extracts supplied by secretaries. What has happened?

Sir R. HORNE: May I point out that the normal working of trade is not put forward in the document I have quoted for the creation of employment. There
is not a word about it. It is a question of panaceas which they alone can provide.

The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman is a little bit mistaken. That leaflet deals with panaceas. [Laughter.] Why not?

Sir R. HORNE: This is the accredited document issued on behalf of the Labour party. It is headed "Labour's appeal to the Nation," and it describes the manifesto and their programme, and it never suggests anywhere that a normal return to trade is the remedy.

The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman does himself an injustice. In that manifesto the right hon. Gentleman will find a paragraph asking that. the normal conditions of trade with Russia should be restored. [Laughter.] Why all this laughter? First of all, you have the statement bluntly made that we have no hope of a return to normal trade, and when it is pointed out that in that respect in an exceedingly important area in Europe and Asia we advocate a return to normal trade, the reply is laughter. From the point of view of the return to normal trade, what do the figures of unemployment show now? I have had a statement taken out analysing the various trades affected by unemployment, and this is the concluding part of it. It will be seen in each group, as well as in the total, that the present percentage of unemployed is appreciably greater than in 1913 and in 1914, but the difference is much more marked in engineering, shipbuilding, and the cotton industry than in any other trade taken as a whole.
In engineering and shipbuilding the percentage of unemployed is not appreciably higher than in 1909. In trades other than engineering, shipbuilding and the cotton industry it is considerably lower, being 35 per cent. In 1908 it was 571, and in 1909 it was 477 per cent. What were the two main industries affected? They were shipbuilding and engineering, and those, are exactly the two industries that will receive the greatest benefit from a normal restoration of trade all over the world. That normal condition is going to depend very largely upon the things which one has got to take an interest in when, in the
words of the right, hon. Gentleman, "their eyes are fixed on foreign horizons."

Sir R. HORNE: I do not wish to conduct a controversy across the Floor of the House, but I wish to say that I have looked through all this manifesto, and there is not a single word in it in reference to the restoration of trade.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Admit your defeat.

The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman again has done himself a grave injustice, because the last line of the paragraph reads
and the resumption of free economic and diplomatic relations with Russia

Sir R. HORNE: This one is signed by the Prime Minister.

The PRIME MINISTER: if it is not in that particular one which the right hon. Gentleman has been reading, it is in the one which was handed to me.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: It is in that one, too.

5.0 P.M.

The PRIME MINISTER: I know there was not a single weighty official pronouncement made about our foreign policy that did not contain a reference to the resumption of normal trade with Russia in some shape or form. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Colonies?"] I am perfectly willing to take them on the Colonies, too. I think, however, we had better just go on with the discussion. I think it is far better, although these interruptions are quite exhilarating, to develop one's argument. There are two things. First of all, there was a declaration of the Labour party upon the relation of trade and unemployment. There was this declaration regarding normal trade:
It is desired, through foreign policy mainly, to restore the conditions which would enable the free interchange of foreign goods to take place between nations one with another.
In that connection there was the attitude that the Labour party took regarding Free Trade. There we stood firm and solid against the Government as it then was, and the reason why we took that stand—declared on every important platform of the country by every important speaker who spoke for the Labour party—
was that the policy the then Government asked the nation to adopt would be a policy of restricted production, and an impoverishment of the nation to which we belong. We referred to another thing. We referred to work. I withdraw nothing. I said that work is preferable to maintenance. I said so then; I believe so now; and any Government—Labour, Liberal, or Conservative—that rests its case for dealing with unemployment on mere insurance or maintenance ought to be condemned by the House of Commons. We, must bend our energies to get work.
Now, what have we done? Work, I think, can divide itself into two categories. One is temporary, what you might call, without any disrespect, patchwork, work that sometimes necessarily must be expedited, work very often of a road-making character and so on, harbour schemes that would not be put into operation now, but in the course of time would be put into operation, expedited for the purpose of enabling us to tide over our temporary difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour referred to some of those schemes that we have taken on, but then hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "Our schemes!" Well, let me take the House into confidence. It is the simplest thing in the world for a Government to schedule the title of a lot of schemes—roads, paving, and so on--to give no content to the title, and then, when somebody comes and puts something into them, they proudly say, "Our schemes!"
Let me prove what I have said. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has been very liberal in quoting our pledges. I am not at all sure but that we were a little bit innocent in these matters. Why should I not confess it? I will tell the Committee in the form of an accusation against hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is more convenient for me. The form is this: Until yon have been in office, until you have seen those files warning Cabinet Ministers of the dangers of legislation, or that sort of thing, you have not had the experience of trying to carry out what seems to be a simple thing, but which becomes a complex, an exceedingly difficult, and a laborious and almost heartbreaking thing when you come to be a member of a Cabinet in a responsible Government. I know it. But if you have had that experience, and then
give pledges and make statements that you knew you cannot carry out, your culpability is infinitely greater. On the 16th October, 1923, the then Minister of Labour, Sir Montague Barlow, as Minister of Labour, speaking for his Government—the official spokesman of his Government—having seen the files, proposals and plans, the attractiveness on the one hand and difficulties on the other, made this statement at Stationers' Hall. He had given a number of figures, which he was going to translate into work, and went on to say:
But, taking all these facts into Consideration, it is clear that the new expenditure now being initiated, and, as far as possible, put in hand immediately, and of which I have given the outline, cannot amount to less than £50,000,000, and may prove to work out at a considerably higher figure.
That was a definite pledge by the responsible Minister, apparently knowing what ho was talking about, that £50,000,000 was to be spent immediately upon a winter programme. Then the right hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), more ebullient than his less imaginative 'colleague, said on the 27th October, as reported in the "Times ":
The Government have been considering schemes, and they are expending, as the Minister of Labour has said, £50,000,000 during the winter. If necessary, they would spend another £50,000,000.
Then, again, Sir Montague Barlow, in November, 1923, said:
I now want to say one ward as to the finance of this, as I venture to think, statesmanlike national programme for grappling with unemployment.
And then he said, having become infected by the enthusiasm of his right hon. Friend:
It amounts. in round figures, on a very conservative estimate. to about £100,000,000.
We came in on the 23rd January. We came effectively into office not before the beginning of February. What did we find? Great machinery at work that wag going to absorb, before the end of the winter, £100,000,000? Not at all! The bills have been paid at the end of March—£250,000. In the sums on the list that Sir Montague Barlow had in front of him when he made the first speech to which I have referred, there were certain sums which were covering guarantees. I want to supplement what I have said—cash,
£250,000; guarantees not much more than £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. That is a complete statement, and now upon that hon. Members can quite well understand how tremendously attractive, how tremendously simple it is for hon. Members opposite to come and say, if we do actually put a whole scheme into operation, and put men on to it, if we actually do put work into a scheme, and begin to spend money on labour, "That is our scheme!" [An HON. MENDER: "What, are the schemes?"] They were given--a number of road schemes and other schemes. There is another thing. I want the Committee very seriously to consider the position in which it is putting itself. If we had come in, say, with road schemes two or three years ago, we would have found local authorities with a fair margin of credit, and financial case within which to turn. We come in in 1924. We find that every local authority that has had to bear the brunt of unemployment has spent, and spent, and spent, and overdrawn, and overdrawn, and overdrawn, until whoever faces this problem in a. practical way cannot. avoid relating it to this eternal problem of the relation between local rating and Imperial taxation.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What are you doing for them?

The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. and gallant Friend found himself in our place next week, he would find that this is the difficulty. We might move in a ramshackle kind of way, and say we would goad the local authorities; but I will never be a party to that. Before we touch that, we must be very sure that we are not so mixing up local and national finance, and so shifting the burden of moral responsibility that we shall bring ourselves into greater chaos than the financial administration of this country has ever found itself in before. I said that years before the election; I wrote it before the election; I say it now, and I will say it again. We have to be exceedingly careful, in working out these schemes, to do everything we can, where we are stepping in and taking upon our shoulders responsibilities that are preeminently in their classification local responsibilities, to see where we are. What we have done is this: We have divided out certain things from local responsibility that are at present regarded as matters of local responsi-
bility, and have taken them over as a central responsibility. A typical case of that kind is the case of certain large arterial roads, roads which, I think, ought to be built from central funds completely. We are now beginning those roads, and I hope that, before long, the first parts of them will be in working order and people will be employed upon them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are you taking the land through which the roads are going?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is the part of the matter which requires legislation, and it requires time. My hon. and gallant Friend is a man of very great energy, but he would not take over the land of the country in four months.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But I would take over the land for these roads.

The PRIME MINISTER: Do let the Committee remember that if we can only put work in hand which is based upon legislation first of all, and that very contentious legislation—for my hon. and gallant Friend will admit that this proposal would be very contentious—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You have a majority.

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not a question of a majority; it is a question of time. I find sometimes great trouble in getting the Closure. Do not let us be led astray. The point is that we must not merely produce schemes which are based upon legislation. Legislation will take a. great deal of time, and it is most uncertain, and what we have to do is to hurry up what can be hurried up, and carefully construct schemes relating to the more intricate problems that face us, so that, should we go to-day or should we go to-morrow, we shall have left, at any rate, a foundation upon which succeeding Governments can build up a fabric of employment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Busholme made a speech last Thursday which related mainly to the second category of work, that is to say, national construction--schemes which are not patchwork schemes, which are not merely temporary schemes, but which, when completed, will add to the growing industrial prosperity of the country. I have just been looking at some of the
dates, so far as I have recorded them, when those matters came under consideration. There was afforestation, within five or six days of our coming into office, and there was electricity, within a week of our coming into office. May I appeal to the Committee to exercise its judgment and to give some consideration to the magnitude and proportions of the work? Take the matter of electricity. The raw material for working out a great scheme for electrical supply is in two or three Reports, mainly the Report of the Haldane Coal Conservation Committee and the Report of the Committee on the Utilisation of Water Resources. We find that, under those Reports, a pretty steady development has already taken place. We find, for instance, that, of the 16 districts which the Haldane Committee recommended, and which have now been reduced by the Williamson Committee to 15, nine have already been put into operation; but whoever now deals with the problem of electrical reconstruction will have to face these problems.
There is, first of all, the problem of hydro-electric production. Can you do that in four months? Can you get your scheme perfected in four months? Is there any business man in this House—I would ask him to leave his political predilections on the doormat outside—who would say that you could?. I believe that the development of electrical power in this country is going to have a tremendously beneficial effect in steadying work under normal conditions, and in increasing the efficiency of the country, and everything the Government can do, while I am a member of it, will be done.

Mr. BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—

The PRIME, MINISTER: Let me admit straight away to the hon. Member that he knows far more of the industry than I do. My business is the very difficult business of co-ordinating a thousand and one activities, and I do not pretend to have anything except just enough knowledge to enable me to see how things are going. I hope the Committee will not assume for a single moment that I am claiming anything else. The first point that we must explore is that of the water possibilities, and the place for the exploration of water possibilities, I think,
is Scotland. I think the Severn barrage ought to be considered, but I think that, from the natural configuration of the ground, the fall of the water, and the level of the rivers, if we are really going to cheapen our electrical supply, as Switzerland, Norway and Sweden have been able to cheapen theirs, by the use of water power, Scotland and Wales are pre-eminently the places where the exploration should take place. But this must all be worked out, and in working it out we are abandoning nothing that we said about the value of electrical development in a long constructive programme for dealing with unemployment. There are all the interests that have to be squared—I am not using the word "squared" in its technical sense—there are the local interests of a public character, and there are individual interests. It has been found, in coordinating all the areas within the nine districts that have been set up, that here, there and elsewhere, little local, private and personal interests have been created, and, until we have powers to deal with them, we are going to be baffled in producing the result that we should like to produce. The work is based on the 1919 Bill, and the foundation of that Bill is voluntary action.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that it was.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sorry to interrupt, but the basis of the 1919 Bill was compulsory. The compulsory Clauses were eliminated in the House of Lords, and the next Bill. I agree, that of 1920 or 1921, was on a. compulsory basis. That, of course, is the defect. of the last Bill.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry if I made a mistake in the date. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The Act under which we are working is a voluntary Act. As soon as the Commissioners, either on their own initiative or prompted by us, produce a scheme, they have to hold a local inquiry. All the expense and paraphernalia of that has to be gone through, and so on and so on; and, because we are baffled in that way, and because we must have legislation to amend that Act, the Conservative party produce an Amendment to reduce my right hon. Friend's salary by £100 because, in four months, he has not produced that
legislation, put it into operation, and produced its results. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about unemployment?"] Surely, hon. Members could not have been in their places when we said we were going to develop the organisation of electrical power in order to aid the unemployed. That is what we have in mind, and I am explaining why, in four months, it is absolutely impossible to do more than we have done, namely, set to work to find out what is required, begin to give an impetus here and an impetus there, create the conditions under which the House of Commons can pass the legislation, and then go on with the work, as we are all wanting to do, and as I hope is the desire of hon. Members opposite. I think I shall take them at their word, although it is only an interjected word. I think we might produce this compulsory legislation. I think we might do it, and see whether hon. Members in this House are as enthusiastic about getting the Government Law Officers upon the Committee as they were upstairs in order to show their great desire to clear up the difficulties about evictions. There is one example that I would like to give of the work we are doing, to show how, as a matter of fact, we are just in the springtime of our efforts. Whoever comes and sits here, and means to deal with unemployment, means to deal with precisely those points that he must meet and those suggestions which he. himself offered last week, will find that he has got to clear away that under-wood before he is able to move freely and begin the consideration of the work he would like to start.
Then there is the question of afforestation. I believe in afforestation. Whilst the planting is going on it gives employment. When the growth starts and the first pruning begins it is a great work for the country. But there is one condition. You cannot get London unemployed people to go up to Perthshire and plant trees. Afforestation, if it is to be any good at all, must be associated with a well-considered scheme of land settlement. The two must go together. Again you come up against this problem of how the State may have, to begin with, to acquire control over the land, which at the moment it has not got, and cannot get until legislation has gone through the House of Commons. I think I might take hon. Members at their
word again and try them with a Bill. I should like to emphasise a little this question of afforestation and to show the position of the afforestation Commission itself. I am not sure whether this will be made use of against me, but never mind, let it be! When I said first of all to my colleagues, "We must fulfil our pledges regarding afforestation," it is not merely that one has pledged oneself to it. One feels an interest in one's heart in the growing of trees and the clothing that is beautiful and appropriate to mountain sides, which, alas! have been devastated in the last few years. What we have to work up to is this. I discovered, when this came up, that the Forestry Commission is an independent body. No Department is responsible for it except in a sort of indirect. way, and I do not know if I can even say that. It has a Statutory existence. I think we must consider the relations of the Departments with the Commission. not that one for a moment wishes thereby to pass criticism upon its work. I should like to assure Lord Lovat that no one appreciates his work more heartily than I do. I know it, not merely by reading about it, I have seen it. My eyes have seen the trees that he has planted growing in a most promising way. But still the Government that is going to develop the policy of afforestation must have some power to impress its ideas upon a responsible Commission so that its policy may be experimented with.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: There are 600,000 acres that we bought for 6d. an acre to experiment upon.

The PRIME MINISTER: Quite true. I believe it is about 10,000 acres planted per annum now. It was cut down by the Geddes axe.

Mr. ACLAND: The right hon. Gentleman's figure is correct. it got to 10,000 acres three years ago. It was cut down by the Geddes axe, and now we want to get it up again.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. It was cut down two or three years ago owing to the Geddes axe falling upon it. I am not satisfied with that. I believe we ought to plant every year a minimum of 30,000 acres until we have reached a certain maximum of planted area, and by that time we shall have got our people
settled on the land—the planting of people as well as the planting of trees. I have told the Committee what is being done. I have explained why in the large constructive work which figures largely in our programme, which, as a matter of fact, is the only thing I am interested in as permanent work, before we can produce the actual work we have to make a clearance for the foundation upon which we are to build. We have been in office only a short time. I am not saying this in the usual way. [Interruption.] Really, why should I not? I am not a magician, and I do not produce magical results in two or three months. It was merely to chide, in the most respectful way, hon. Members who are going to vote against me to-night, who wish to turn us out, perhaps, and to assure them that I regret as much as they do that, having come in, and finding the primitive overgrowths of old-fashioned Toryism uncut by them, before I can put people on the land or plant good, healthy Scottish firs, I have to clear it, and they have no business, in honour and in fair play, to tell me that whilst I am clearing the ground I am not trying to fulfil the pledges I gave when I was a candidate. The blame, if there is any, is upon hon. Members who will go into the Lobby to-night against us and to-morrow profess that they have done it in the interests of the unemployed.
I began by saying I saw far more attempt at political tactics in the right hon. Gentleman'e speech than criticism of what the Government have done or have not done. With that I end. To be quite candid, the action of the right hon. Gentleman is not impressive. I can understand that they made a frightful muddle in October and November and they would like to recover themselves. One right hon. Gentleman to-day, I think the Member for Birmingham, associated this with the complaint about the McKenna Duties. That is quite right. The right hon. Gentleman was far more innocent than the right hon. Gentleman who employed political tactics in attacking us this afternoon. Is this part of the policy which they are going to pursue, knowing that this Parliament is composed of three parties not one single one of which can command a majority? I do not blame them. If they think that at this moment by a change of Government and a General Election they are to
benefit Europe, to benefit their own country as well as have another risky chance of benefiting their own fortunes, then let them defeat us to-night. I know hon. Members far too well to believe anything but this, that in their own hearts they know perfectly well that this Debate and these charges are exceedingly ill-founded. They want another Election. They want another Tariff Reform campaign. They have a chance of getting the country to vote for Protection. It may be that Kelvingrove has its attractions and West Toxteth has its terrors. Never mind I Let them go into the Lobby to-night. Let them defeat us. So far as we are concerned, as I said in the first speech I delivered to the House in the honourable position which I now occupy, if this House wishes by its expressions of opinion to change the policy of the Government on matters in which I think it is right that the whole House should be taken into counsel by the Government, we shall accept a defeat without regarding it as a Vote of Censure, but my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for this Department, having done his best under exceedingly difficult circumstances, has a Motion moved against him that his salary be reduced by,C100. There is not a single person in the Committee who does not know that that is a Vote of Censure upon the Government. If to-night you pass a vote of "No confidence" in the Government, I can assure you I shall do my best to meet you on every platform throughout the country.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: In the Debate last Tuesday week on the Unemployment Insurance Bill the Minister of Labour intervened and informed me that on Thursday the whole question of unemployment would be discussed. I was unavoidably absent from the Debate, owing to the fact that I had a longstanding engagement. in my constituency, and I was deprived of the opportunity of hearing the speech of the Minister of Labour. But I read the speech very carefully, and I was profoundly disappointed with it. It seemed to me to be lacking in an appreciation of the real gravity of the problem which confronts the nation. The Prime Minister, as far as I can see to-day, has developed no policy for the remedying of the causes of unemployment. The whole
of his remarks were directed to the relief of the existing unemployment and not to the remedying of the causes of unemployment, and getting down to the root of the matter.
When I was speaking last Tuesday, I asked what was the Labour party's remedy for unemployment, and one hon. Member answered, quite frankly, "It is Socialism." Let us assume that the general application of Socialistic principles to the goverment of the State is the Labour party's policy for the removal of the causes of unemployment. That is an intelligible proposition. The party opposite have their policy, and they staked their political future on their remedy, namely, Protection. They went to the country on it and the country turned it down, and they were thrown out of office on that issue. That, again, is an intelligible proposition. My own party, the Liberal party, have a policy for the remedying of the evil. It is not so spectacular as either of the other two policies, but I think it is the safer policy and one that is more likely to lead to good results. We believe that it is the application to the Government of this country of those principles which have been the principles of the Liberal party for many generations, the removal of all restrictions on trade, the establishment of our foreign relations and the cultivation of friendly relations with all foreign powers. We believe that you must reestablish a condition of affairs which will lead to or permit of a storation of the normal conditions of trade.
On what lines should we proceed with this problem? It is a national problem, and we should seek a national settlement if any words of mine can reach the Government, I would ask them seriously to consider the calling together of the very best brains in the country to see whether they could not hammer out a. solution for the ills from which this country is suffering. I suggest that we should call together not only the best brains in this country but the best brains in the Empire to see whether they could not find some solution which would at least minimise the evils of unemployment if they could not entirely remove them. A solution of this problem must be found, because it is, like a cancer, eating into vitals of the nation. It is deteriorating our people. It is destroying any hopes
in men and women of ever returning to employment and decent conditions of life, and it is preventing our boys and girls who are coming into industrial life from getting employment, and even depriving them of the hope of ever getting employment.
If such a conference were set up, it. might explore every avenue that would lead to a solution of this question. It might explore the Socialistic proposals of the Government. We should require to know exactly what Socialism is. I am afraid that since the founder of Socialism laid down his doctrines, there have been many variations of the Socialist faith. I would call attention to the definition laid down by the founder of Socialism, which is one to which we could all subscribe. It was:
Let each man find his own in other's good,
And all men join the Brotherhood.
Some of the Socialism that has been preached in this country is very different from that.
I have one suggestion to make, and I do not know whether it will be received with favour in any quarter of the House, but I have held the opinion for a long time that the human beings engaged in industry have as much right to be considered as essential to the industry and as part of the industry as have the buildings and the machinery of the industry. They have a right to be the first charge on the reserves of that in-dustry, and if you have a cotton mill or an ironworks or a shipyard, it is not entitled to enjoy four or five years of trade prosperity and big dividends and then, when bad times come, to cast out the whole of the human beings who have been employed in that industry, to shift as best they can for themselves suggest that the lines on which the conference might inquire would be to see whether they could not 'attach labour to industry and make that industry responsible for looking after the human beings that have been employed in it in prosperous times.
Let theme establish, if necessary compel them to establish, large reserves out of profits, in order that, when bad times come, they might use those reserves for the mitigation of the rigours of unemployment. It could he done in two ways. It could be done either by giving an
allowance to the worker during slack times, or it could be done by using the reserves to encourage business, even by selling at a loss and making it up out of the reserves, in order that they might keep their factories going. I believe that the capitalists might very well give a guarantee for labour, and that they would look after the labour attached to their industry, in return for the security of their capital and for the right to earn a profit within the industry in good time. By that means I believe we could get rid of a great deal of the unemployment question.
We have always the problem of unemployment. There are two distinct problems before the nation to-day, one permanent and the other temporary, atleast, we hope it is temporary. We have that great body of people who are on the line between unemployment and the unemployable. These can be dealt with by insurance schemes, out-of-work schemes, and the boards of guardians. We have also great masses of people in our staple industries who are thrown out of work because of the failure of those industries to obtain orders to keep their factories going. That is a very different problem. It is a problem that only occurs in cycles. The difference between good trade and had trade is a very small one. I have heard it argued that it is only two-and-a-half per cent. either below or above a datum line, that if you are two-and-a-half per cent. below the line you have trade depression and unemployment., and if you are two-and-a-half per cent. above the line you have prosperity and a difficulty in obtaining labour.
If you could induce your industries to take charge of their own workers, you would do a great deal to get rid of industrial unrest. This is too great a question to be made a party question. It is too big a question to he treated as a sort of stick with which one political party can beat the other, or that one political party can use it at the election in order to snatch some petty electoral advantage from the other. I appeal to the Government to try to hammer out some scheme which would get to the root of this terrible affliction which has fallen upon the nation. While such an investigation was proceeding, it would be necessary to continue the system of out-
of-work relief, and I suggest that all political parties should cease gibing at one another during the interval.
So deeply do I feel on this subject, that I would give whole-hearted support to any scheme that is likely to reach a solution of the problem. I do not care by what party it is introduced. If we can reach a solution I believe that the country would be willing for any party that came forward with such a scheme to reap any electoral advantage there might be. If it could only get rid of the misery of our people, if it would take away that look of misery on some of the faces that I have seen, I should be indebted to any party bringing forward such a scheme, and I would give it my whole-hearted support.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. RENTOUL: I desire to endorse with all the sincerity at my command the appeal that has been made by the hon. Member for co-operation between all parties and all sections in trying to arrive at a solution of what is undoubtedly a very terrible problem. No Member of this House need apologise for venturing to intervene in this discussion, because it is a matter which affects us all equally as individuals. No matter what kind of constituency we represent, and no matter what may be its geographical situation, this question of unemployment is a vital and absorbing one for thousands of our constituents. A very large part of the time of this House, both during the last Parliament and this one, has rightly been spent in discussing various aspects of this question. Indeed, one may say that the last General Election was fought out upon this matter of unemployment as, broadly speaking, the single issue. That being so, it is not unnatural that strong criticism should have been made from all quarters of this House as to the utter failure of the Government to produce any adequate scheme for getting to the root of this evil, as well as their entire inability to live up to their election promises in this respect. A week ago the Minister of Labour made a speech which to many of us was startling in its complacency, as well as in its entire lack of constructive schemes of necessary work, beyond those which he had inherited from the previous Government, which do more than touch the fringe of this question. At the same time, I do feel that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Minister of
Labour for the confession which he made some little time ago, which was refreshing, at any rate, in its frankness, when he said, speaking in this House on the. 18th February last:
The present position is, that unemployment of an exceptional kind is facing the country. In the opinion of the Government that unemployment is directly caused by the War."—[OFFTCIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1921: col. 1381, Vol. 169.]
I do think that that is a statement of some importance which helps to some extent to clear the air, because that is exactly what many of us have been trying to emphasise for some two or three years past. Speaking for myself I know of no statement which was received with greater derision by certain sections of supporters of hon. Members opposite than the statement that unemployment was directly caused by the War, and it was not unnatural that it should be so when we find that even the Prime Minister himself, speaking as recently as January last in Birmingham, said:
We have 1,300,000 unemployed. What has created it? Private enterprise. If this system of private enterprise is so magnificent then we will judge it by its fruits. One of the most bitter and poisonous of its fruits is unemployment.
He did not say that unemployment was directly caused by the War but that it was due, in his opinion, to private enterprise. That is the doctrine that has been preached by the Labour party for some time past. For instance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time ago said in this House:
We shall always have this problem of unemployment existing, and of poverty, so long as the control and direction of industry is in private hands.
But now the Government have apparently altered their opinion, and, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in the opinion of the Government it is the War which has caused unemployment. If that is so of course there can be no complete cure for unemployment without a restoration of normal trade conditions throughout the world. That is bound, as everyone will admit, to take a considerable time. Therefore all steps must be taken in the meantime that will alleviate even to a small extent the sufferings of these hundreds of thousands of unemployed men and women throughout the country. So far as I am aware no one on this side of the House ever
suggested that the large schemes initiated by the late Government were anything more than palliatives. The Prime Minister has spoken in a very scornful manner this afternoon about the extent of those schemes. Never mind whether they were small or large. It was never suggested that they could essentially he otherwise than palliatives, but the point is that the Labour party went to the country at the Election and pretended that they had in their possession something more than a mere palliative, that they had in effect a positive remedy of more or less immediate application, and it was on this ground that they received from the electors the measure of support that they did receive.
It was believed, not unnaturally, that, by a positive remedy, the Labour party meant to imply some scheme of constructive and necessary work which would get rid of unemployment pay and of relief schemes and temporary measures of that kind. We now find that it was nothing of the kind, that the positive remedy to which they referred could only be brought about by a socialisation of the whole structure of the industry of this country and, therefore, in spite of the statement by the Minister of Labour that there was nothing worse than making promises without the intention of carrying them out—and I think that he might have said that there is nothing worse than making promises when you know that you will not have the ability or the opportunity to carry them out—the talk at the last election of a positive remedy was so much empty talk. If the positive remedy that is referred to meant Socialism, the country has clearly and emphatically and clearly decided against it. That being so, the Labour party have no positive remedy at all. Their only positive remedy of Socialism having been turned down, the only alternative that remains to them is to try to carry on as best they can the schemes that have been initiated by former Governments. If, on the other hand, the positive remedy is something less than Socialism, then why not bring it forward? This is not a matter in regard to which they can plead the excuse of having no majority, because we are all most anxious to co-operate. There is no one, I hope sincerely, who desires to make party capital out of a question of this kind, and the Leader of
the Opposition, speaking on the 10th March last, said to the Government:
If you have a positive remedy that is to cure unemployment you will have the support of the House and of the country and your name will be blessed.
I feel sure that the statement will receive the sincere endorsement of every one of us. A week ago, from the Liberal Benches, the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman), when referring to the statement which, I understand, appeared in one of the Labour newspapers to the effect that the Government were not in a position to bring in any of their great schemes for finishing off unemployment, made the appeal:
Bring in the scheme. That is all we ask.
Because it must be admitted that no party in the country to-day dare refuse to give the most careful and serious consideration to any scheme which would be likely to offer a solution of this question. At any rate, so far as this side of the House is concerned, I feel sure that we should not be tempted to imitate the bad example that was initiated by the Labour party in 1921, when they refused to co-operate with the Government of that day in working out some solution of the unemployment question. It is useless, I suggest, to discuss or depreciate the omissions of other Governments in dealing with this question, or to suggest, as we hear frequently suggested, that other Governments have been callous or indifferent in regard to it. That is all a matter of past history. It does not happen to be true. But what we are concerned with is trying to find some solution for the immediate present and the future. At the last Election both Protection and Socialism were put forward as possible remedies for unemployment. The electorate decided against both the suggested remedies. That being so, we might have co-operation and good will between all parties in devising other methods to bridge over the present difficulty.
To-night's Division, we are told, is to be made by the Government a test question. They will regard it as a Vote of Censure. Constitutionally they may be correct in doing so, though that was not the attitude apparently adopted by them a week ago, and one cannot therefore help having the
suspicion that it has been adopted to-day in order to put as much pressure as possible on certain of their supporters and nominal allies who might be inclined to vote in accordance with what they really believe to be the facts. At any rate this Debate will have had one useful result, namely, that it will help to ensure that the country shall no longer be 'deluded by false hopes of what the Labour party, as distinct from other parties, can do to remedy unemployment, and also that it shall not be misled by suggesting a course of action that merely has the effect of antagonising in many ways the forces of Capital and Labour, instead of bringing them together in the only method which holds out any hope of achieving a real settlement of this problem.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Junior): The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Rentoul) seems to object to the policy or lack of policy of the Labour Government, on the ground chiefly that at the last Election they told the electors of this country that if they were returned to power they would solve the unemployment problem by introducing a Socialist programme.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Solve the unemployment problem!

Mr. HENDERSON: I think that I was quoting the hon. Member correctly when I said he told us that the Labour party had fought the election on this policy of Socialism.

Mr. RENTOUL: The point which I was making was that at the last Election the Labour party told the country that they had a positive remedy, but they did not explain to the country that that positive remedy was Socialism.

Mr. HENDERSON: May I refer to this much abused manifesto? I am sure that my hon. Friend has studied the manifesto, but that he has forgotten what it contains. The third paragraph, "Work or maintenance," states:
Unemployment is a recurrent feature of the existing economic system common to every industrialised country irrespective of whether it has Protection or Free Trade. The Labour party alone has a positive remedy for it.
The Labour party prior to that time had stated that so long as society is organised as it is to-day so long will you have unemployment, and the very basis of the party
is to carry out as soon as possible the Socialist principles for which it stands. It has never made any secret that it fought the last Election largely on the Socialist programme, and I venture to say that it will fight the next Election on the same programme. I do not think that it can be argued that it has ever made any secret of the fact that it stands for a Socialist programme, and my hon. Friend will agree with me that if that be so it is no criticism to urge against us that we have not put into force that Socialist programme. He said himself that a majority of the country at the last Election had declared itself against the Socialist programme of the Labour party. Rightly assuming that the positive remedy for which the Labour party stands, in so far as it is concerned with the problem of unemployment, is this Socialist doctrine, it cannot be argued against us that we have broken our pledges in not introducing this Socialist programme, in regard to which we are in a minority in the country. In discussing the inability of the Labour Government to produce schemes which would solve the root causes of this great problem, it is interesting to note the record of the previous Government on this question. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) has left the House. In October of last year he made a speech in which he admitted that the previous Government had failed to solve the root causes of unemployment. Speaking at Salisbury on 26th October, he said:
The Government's efforts had failed to cope with the root evil of unemployment.
That speech was made eight months or more after the Conservative Government had come into office. It is also interesting to note that in a speech about the same time the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) made this remarkable statement:
It is better to do nothing than to do something wrong.
As he spoke as a prominent Member of the then Government, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman knew what he was talking about. I would remind hon. Members opposite that they should be the very last people to criticise the present Government for its inability to cope with this problem. They were in office for nearly 12 months, and they did practically nothing towards solving the
problem. On Thursday last the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Master-man), in a speech on this point, said:
I must honestly say, and I say so in no offensive fashion, that unless something more than is suggested by the Labour Department is done, and done quickly, this Government will be under the liability of being reckoned in the future as a Government of broken promises. They have broken promises again and again to the ex-service men, and they have broken promises to the unemployed"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1924; col. 2465, Vol. 173.]
With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that statement is both unjustifiable and exaggerated. The Labour party does hold the opinion that, taking the long view, we shall never solve the unemployment problem so long as society is constituted as it is to-day. But we are a practical people, and we realise that it is possible to provide temporary solutions of the unemployment problem. Personally, I would agree with the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) when he says:
if we are going to solve the problem, or at any rate relieve the terrible effects as we know them to-day, the first condition is the restoration of real peace and economic settlement in Europe. Without that, not one inch of progress can be made.
I, therefore, disagree totally with the right hon. and hon. Members opposite when they gibe at speakers on this side who concern themselves with the international aspect of the situation. In my opinion the temporary solution of the problem can never be achieved—

Whereupon, BLACK ROD being come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER  resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. National Health Insurance (Cost of Medical Benefit) Act, 1924.
2. Friendly Societies Act, 1924.
3. School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1924.
671
4. Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1924.
5. London, Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1924.
6. St. Andrew's Links Order Confirmation Act, 1924.
7. St. Just (Falmouth) Ocean Wharves and Railways (Abandonment) Act, 1924.
8. Rawtenstall Corporation Act, 1924.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. ENTWISTLE in the Chair.]

Question again proposed. "That Item A (1) be reduced by £100."

Mr. A. HENDERSON, Junr.: I was saying that I did not understand why hon. Members opposite should be so anxious to gibe at speakers on this side for endeavouring to concentrate attention upon the international aspect of the unemployment question, when we realise that, at the present time, the volume of our export trade is only 75 per cent. of what it was in pre-War days. In the case of Russia we had a volume of trade representing about £50.000,000 per year, and in the case of Germany a volume of trade representing about £100,000,000 per year.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does the hon. Member assert that we had an export trade of £50,000,000 with Russia?

Mr. HENDERSON: Export and import. The total volume of trade in the year 1913–14 was about £50,000,000, or possibly a little less—about £48,000,000.

Mr. SAMUEL: This is a very interesting point. Can the lion. Gentleman tell the Committee how much we exported in goods to Russia?

Mr. HENDERSON: I think about £14,000,000 in 1913. The Committee will realise the importance of re-establishing our foreign markets, and any policy on the part of this Government which will tend, in the long run, to re-establish those markets must be encouraged by this country. I am, not suggesting for one moment that the beneficial results of the foreign policy which is being followed by the present Government are likely to mature at once. Taking the short view,
I daresay it will be two years or so before we realise the benefits of the foreign policy of the present Government, but the fact that the beneficial results are latent rather than patent is, to my mind, no reason for speaking in derogation of a policy which will produce those beneficial results in the long run. The same applies to our home markets. The amount of purchasing power in this country is considerably less to-day than it was before the War. I am not suggesting that the policy of deflation followed in the years subsequent to the Great War was a bad policy. There is a difference of opinion among economists on the point and, not being an economist, I am not prepared to offer an opinion one way or the other, but it is interesting to note that one of the greatest economists in the world, Professor Cassell, in his interesting memorandum on monetary reform, published in 1919, while strongly advocating deflation, suggested that it should be done very gradually and very carefully. That policy was not followed in this country, and the result has been that purchasing power has been diminished to a greater extent than should have been the case.
I am not suggesting that the reduction in nominal amount is any criterion. The question is what is the real purchasing power? Is the real purchasing power of the working classes equivalent to what it was before the War? If we examine the statistics we must come to the conclusion that, so far as large numbers of the working classes are concerned, the amount of real purchasing power at their disposal is considerably less than it was in pre-War days. We know, for example, in the case of workers in the shipbuilding industry that their purchasing power is 50 per cent. less than it was before the War or perhaps I should put it the other way—their purchasing power is only 20 per cent. more than it was in pre-War days whereas the cost of living at the moment is 70 per cent. more. The same thing applies in the mining industry. The miners in many districts are considerably worse off than they were before the War. Hon. Members opposite must take this factor into consideration when dealing with possible solutions of the unemployment problem. I do not suggest that a policy of inflation should be followed, but I think the Government might well consider the granting of facilities for credit
for industrial purposes. Such facilities would have to be carefully watched and extensions of credit should not be on too great a scale, but Professor Keynes, one of the greatest economists in this country, said the other day that he was of opinion that a gradual extension of Credit might provide employment for probably 100,000 men per year.
These other aspects of the unemployment problem must be taken into consideration when we are endeavouring to ascertain the best means of dealing with them. Another point which is to the credit of the present Government is the remission of indirect taxation to the amount of £30,000,000 which has been produced by the Budget. That will correspondingly increase the amount of purchasing power available for the purchase of commodities within the country, resulting in a greater demand for commodities, and a greater demand for workers to produce these commodities, followed by a corresponding reduction in the amount of unemployment. Having regard to the lack of policy and to the mismanagement exemplified in the administration of the last Government, it is not for hon. Members on this side of the House, it is not for the Government, to apologise for its position with regard to unemployment. If anyone has to apologise it should be hon. Members opposite who have such a black record on this question. I trust. the Government will not be deterred from following the lines of progress by any threats of Votes of Censure on the part of hon. Members opposite. If the Government is interfered with, if its task is made more difficult, if the reforms which it has set itself to accomplish are prevented by any policy of obstruction on the part of hon. Members opposite, then the responsibility will rest with them and not with the Government.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The Prime Minister's apologia this afternoon followed the lines of that of the Minister, his colleague, who spoke last week and who said it was unreasonable to expect the Government's full programme to be initiated in four or five months, and that a great constructive scheme would necessarily take time and in some cases legislation. There must be a large measure of agreement on that point, but I respectfully submit that whereas
that is a valid excuse for not proceeding with large national schemes it is no excuse for the Government's failure to enable local authorities to carry out schemes of work which they have in hand and which they would be prepared to push forward if only the Government were willing to assist. The local authorities, the unemployed and this Committee have reason to complain that much more might have been done than has been done to assist employment on the. lines I have suggested. It was my privilege earlier in the week with other hon. Members to interview the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health along with representatives of the municipal associations of this country. We had representatives from Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and all the big cities and towns. They were unanimous in putting forward this proposition, that they had work of a useful character which could be put in hand at once, and which would absorb a large number of the unemployed if.the Government would only allow them to go on and give them additional assistance.
The Prime Minister this afternoon referred to the position of the local authorities. He said when the Government came into office in 1924 they found that the local authorities had over-spent in providing work of this kind, that their accounts were over-drawn, and that they had come to the end of their tether. After that pronouncement I was hopeful that the right hon. Gentleman was going to say that the Government, in view of those circumstances, were prepared to assist the local authorities in the future and enable them to carry out programmes of useful work which the Government were unable to carry out themselves. Instead, we have had what I cannot characterise as other than a most unsympathetic reference by the Prime Minister to the relative responsibilities of the State and the local authorities on this question. Apart from the declaration that a change of policy—which we welcome—was going to take place with regard to certain main arterial roads, no hope was held out that the Government would enable the local authorities to carry out the schemes which, with the necessary assistance, they are prepared to undertake. As has been frequently said, this is a national question. We must cast our minds hack to what happened during the War in these towns. Munition workers
flocked into them, and in many cases where munition works were established there was an increase of population due entirely to the exigencies of the War. Owing to the lack of housing accommodation, those who flocked into the towns have been able to go back, and the consequence is that you have in many industrial areas an increased population for whom there is no work to do. Therefore, the State has an added responsibility, and what the Government are doing, and what the late Government did, is altogether inadequate.
The most favourable terms given to local authorities, namely, 65 per cent. of the loan charges up to one-half the period of the loan—in some cases 50 per cent. of the interest charges, in others 60 percent. of the wages paid on relief work—are altogether inadequate. Papers were submitted to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour the other day on behalf of the municipal corporations, which show that the percentage of cost borne by the localities varied from 10 per cent on certain works up to 32 per cent. on certain other works. In my own town of Middlesbrough, where we have spent during the last few years over a million of money in unemployed relief work, totalling nearly £9 per head of the population in capital expenditure—a tremendous burden, when it is remembered that our rates are 20s. in the £—the average assistance that we get on this unemployed relief work from the State comes out at 26 per cent. of the total charges. That is altogether inadequate, especially when it is remembered that this is work which would not otherwise be undertaken, but is put in hand and expedited in order to help relieve this problem of unemployment. It is work also which is carried on on a more costly basis because of its character, and, therefore, I submit that the local authorities have a right to claim from the Government greater assistance than they are getting. Members of the Labour party, when they were sitting on the other side of the House, were very eloquent in pressing the claims of the local authorities on the Government of that day, and I wish they would use the same influence and the same energy now in order to impress upon their friends in the Government the need for this work.

Mr. LANSBURY: We do it in a quiet sort of way.

Mr. THOMSON: It may be quiet, but it is not very effective, judging by results. I submit, further, that if the 65 per cent. for the half period of the loan up to a maximum of 15 years is adequate in certain cases, it is not adequate in others. Conditions vary so tremendously in different parts of the country that you have a most unequal burden. You have rates up to 25s. 6d. in the as at Merthyr Tydvil, and you have rates down to 8s. 5d. at Bournemouth and 8s. 2d. at Oxford, and it is obvious, therefore, that a flat rate of contribution from the State to the local authorities cannot be an equitable contribution. The Government ought to be willing to increase the percentage of 65 per cent, to some larger figure, so,as to enable the local authorities to get on with useful work, of a productive character in many cases, which would find employment for many of those who are now either going to the guardians or receiving unemployment benefit. The Minister of Labour himself, speaking on this question, as has already been quoted to-night, referred to the unemployment as being a direct result of the War. I wish the hon. Member had completed the quotation, but perhaps I may be allowed to do so. The right hon. Gentleman said:
In the opinion of the Government, that unemployment is directly caused by the War, and ought to be considered as.a national responsibility.… The nation itself is escaping a liability that ought to fall on it, and is putting it on to the poorest of our population and making them bear a burden much too hard for them to bear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1924; cols. 1381–2. Vol. 169.]
I submit that that is sound and that the Government stand condemned in the eyes of the nation, because they have not accepted this responsibility. The previous Government and this Government have come to the assistance of the rural ratepayers with a grant of £4,250,000. I do not grudge them that. but I submit that, if there be a good case for the relief of the agricultural ratepayer, there is an even stronger case for the relief of the necessitous boroughs in the industrial parts of our country. Reference was made by the Prime Minister to the fall in unemployment, but he admitted that in shipbuilding and in engineering the percentage was higher. You have on the North-East coast, in the shipbuilding industry, a figure to-day of 36 per cent.
unemployed, which is an increase on last month, so that, whereas the rate may be falling throughout the country, there are certain districts where it is increasing. When you have 36 per cent. unemployed in one district, as compared with 9 per cent, as the average for the whole country, those figures alone make out a very strong case for differential treatment and for some extra assistance where the burden is so exceedingly heavy. I hope the Government will realise their failure to deal with this question on lines of equity and justice, and although it may be said that, whether the money comes out of the taxes or the rates, it all comes out of public funds, there is a difference in the incidence of the burden. When you take money out of local rates, it is a first charge on the cost of production, whereas if it comes out of the national taxes it is a charge on profits, and that makes a very big difference in the burden which is placed on industry. Might I fortify what I have said by a quotation from one who will carry great respect in this House, the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain). Speaking on this question in the August Debate of last year, he said, with regard to heavy rates
a burden which is not, like Income Tax, dependent upon profits made, but which has to be borne by the industries whether they make profits or not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1923: col. 1651, Vol. 167.]

The DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): I do not think the hon. Member may go into a discussion of the relative incidence of local and national taxation. The question before the Committee is quite wide enough, without embarking upon that.

Mr. THOMSON: I was trying to use that as a reason why, in dealing with the assistance by the State for unemployment, a greater percentage should be given in certain industrial areas, but I will leave that, as you rule it out of order, and merely beg that the Government should do more than their predecessors. We have been told that we should pass this Vote of Censure to-night and turn out the Government. What for? To place hon. Members opposite in power? They were even greater culprits than our friends above the Gangway are,
and we should be making no change in the way of benefiting the unemployed. They have been tried, and found wanting. We are hopeful that, by encouragement, when they have served a longer apprenticeship, the Government may be amenable to pressure and willing to carry out those schemes of productive work which they say they have in hand, but for which they demand greater time. On this question we can appeal, I am sure, with confidence to the President of the Hoard of Trade. When the question was being discussed in August last year, he spoke very sympathetically and very emphatically on the lines that I have indicated. Urging that local authorities should have greater assistance, he said:
The assistance offered to them by the Government has not been adequate to make them willing to undertake, with present trade conditions, large municipal enterprises. Are we going to stop there? The Government is full of good intentions, but if the municipalities are not willing to do it, are we going to rest there? 
I would say to the right, hon. Gentleman this afternoon: Does he stand where he did, is he prepared to leave things as they were? He went on to say—and I think the advice is equally as good to his own Government:
I suggest the Government must really do something more. The Government must really manage to pass beyond the region of good intentions.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to follow the advice of the President of the Board of Trade and to go beyond good intentions. The advice given to his predecessors in office is equally sound and valid to-day, and I hope that, with the pressure which the President can use, as a member of the Cabinet, he will be able to persuade his colleagues to adopt the advice which he gave in August last to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. A difference has been drawn in the Government scheme between revenue producing and non-revenue producing work, and I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why that distinction should be made. Revenue producing schemes are necessarily of a limited character, but why stop there? Surely it is as important that health producing schemes should be encouraged and assisted as it is that tax relieving schemes should be encouraged. There is any amount of work which local
authorities can undertake of a health producing character which will find work for their own unemployed. There are the questions of additional schools, school clinics, hospitals, playgrounds, maternity and child welfare centres—all works of a useful character—and instead of spending, as we were doing last year in Middlesbrough, something like one million of money in unemployment pay and in relief by the guardians to men and women for no services rendered, we had far better spend an even larger sum and get something in return. Every local authority and every municipality has schemes of this character which it can put in hand at once, if only the Government are willing to give the necessary financial assistance, and these schemes would yield valuable national assets in the years to come, and instead of pouring out money and getting nothing in return, we should have something of an invaluable nature to show.
7.0 P.M.
It is not merely a question of the Government refusing to give adequate financial assistance; they are refusing also to allow certain municipalities to carry out work at all under the Unemployment Grants Committee. There was a case put before the Department this week from the City of Birmingham, which put up a scheme to spend half a million of money in the making of an open storage reservoir. The scheme is essential for the water supply of that district, but the Unemployment Grants Committee have turned it down. I submit that that Committee, which has to take its orders from the Cabinet, should not stop useful productive work of that kind, which would find employment for a large number of people, and I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to use her influence with the Government to see that such schemes are not turned down by the Unemployment Grants Committee, which is not a statutory body, independent of the Cabinet, but has to take its orders from the Cabinet, and, therefore, the Cabinet is responsible for its niggardly treatment of these local authorities. I therefore appeal that the Government should realise that, while they are unable to carry out their own large national schemes because they have been in office for only four or five months, that is no reason at all why they should
prevent local authorities getting on with their schemes for the relief of unemployment. It is perfectly true you are but touching the fringe of the question. I do not suggest for a moment you are going to employ a million people, but every man and woman that you employ over and above those who are employed at the present time form some contribution towards this problem. I hope the Government will reconsider the attitude they have adopted, and will be more sympathetic to the claims of these local authorities, who are willing to do their part if only the Government will do their share.

Viscountess ASTOR: There is an atmosphere of unreality about the House to-day, but there is no unreality about unemployment. It is a grim and terrible thing. Hon. Members opposite blame us for it. I know that many Socialists are honourable, honest, and earnest men and women, who thoroughly believe in the policy they preach, and believe it with their whole hearts. We on this side of the House believe just as firmly in our policy. Members opposite have said that the late Government caused unemployment. The only way to get work going is to get our trade going, and the only way to do that is to produce something that someone else wants, and cheaper and better than anyone else is producing it. Have hon. Members opposite done anything towards that end? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said the other night that this question had been going on since 1917. Of course it has, but what have hon. Members opposite been doing since 1917? They have been preaching a policy which has hindered industry, and brought us to the position in which we are now.
The Prime Minister has said that what we want is peace abroad. I agree we want peace abroad, but we want it just as much at home. It is no good preaching international peace when you are preaching industrial warfare here. The Government now have the opportunity to alter matters, and to bring about a condition of prosperity. The Independent Labour Party passed a resolution at Glasgow, which condemns all attempts to bring about any rapprochement between labour and capitalism, or to arrive at any more amicable relation
between labour and capitalism, short of the total abolition of the capitalistic system. The Labour candidate at Kelvingrove, who tried to come into the House, preached open class, warfare. In fact, all the Members of the Labour party on his platform preached class warfare. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are wrong."] The hon. Member who yelled out I was wrong is one of the hon. Members who are always talking about religion. He is the most pious talker in the House of Commons. How on earth he can reconcile his conscience—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady must address the Chair.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. I am guilty of a good many things, but, on this occasion, I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Plymouth.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am delighted that the hon. Member was not one of the hon. Members who interrupted.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Noble Lady should tell the truth.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not know whether she can.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am not bound down to any party. I am one of the roost independent people in the whole country, and the hon. Member knows it.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not know it at all. I only know that you do not need a trumpeter.

Viscountess ASTOR: We need to get industry going. Do hon. Members really think that what they are preaching in the country helps toward industrial reconstruction? They talk about normal trade in Europe, but how can we ever get back to normal times, until we have got one of these systems going, Socialism or Capitalism?

Mr. WALLHEAD: You have got it going. It is going on at the docks.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is very difficult to continue with these interruptions. It is difficult enough when you are outside the House, when people are howling at you, but then you can answer without being called to order. Hon. Members opposite have not put forward a single
constructive thing. The Minister of Labour knows as well as the Prime Minister, that the only hope is co-operation between all classes and all sections of the community. Yet every one of the hon. Members opposite preaches this vile doctrine of class hatred and "Kill the capitalist." Killing the capitalist would be all right, perhaps, if you could get more work, but why are the Russians over here? To get capital. And why have they had to come? Because Cornmunism has failed. I would like to remind the Minister of Labour that those people who are always talking about capitalism are responsible for all the ills of the world.
Since the inauguration of the new economic policy in Russia, in 1921, the system of Labour legislation there has been transformed. The new Labour code is based on principles which differ completely from those on which the former system was based. The conditions of labour are determined by free agreement between the parties. The value of work is determined by the law of supply and demand. The Central Power confines itself to fixing a minimum wage, leaving to the parties themselves the duty of determining the actual remuneration of labour by agreement among themselves. The conditions of work in Russia are at present governed less by legislation of the executive authorities, in spite of the considerable change in the principles of such legislation, than by economic and social conditions, and in particular by the growth of private capitalism side by side with State capitalism. In Germany a Socialist Government also discovered that their theories were impracticable, and substituted a kind of glorified and extended Whitleyism instead of nationalisation. The Government know that only good will and co-operation will restore trade and reduce unemployment. When the Minister of Health wants to build houses he does not talk about "class," but about cooperation. The Prime Minister makes the most beautiful speeches in the country, when it suits his convenience; but the other day he went down to the women and told them that the people over here did not want to build houses. That is a cruel thing to say. [Interruption.] It is a wicked thing to say. Here you tell thousands of people in the country that "the only way to get work is to kill capitalists."

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Who said that? [Interruptions.]

Viscountess ASTOR: Well, how are you going to kill capitalism without you kill the capitalists?

Mr. LANSBURY: We would not lose you for any money.

Viscountess ASTOR: You could not lose us. I am not one of the people who want to turn out the Government. They have made the mess, and they ought to clear it up. They are responsible more than anybody else in the country for the conditions of labour to-day. Hon. Members opposite never preach one word about efficiency. The Prime Minister spoke about the importance of electricity. How can you get people to put their money into anything like that, if they think the Government are going to take it over in about five years? It is not practical politics. Hon. Members do not deal with the facts. There is not a Member here, not even the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley), who would put his money into anything from which he did not anticipate a good return. An hon. Member reminded us recently that the Miners' Federation refused an offer to reorganise the coal industry, after the Sankey Report, on the ground that it might bar the way to nationalisation. Is not that really what is keeping the country back now? When fighting an election one is almost knocked down by this wave of class hatred, based on nothing except the pernicious preaching of Socialism.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You are getting the result of it now.

Viscountess ASTOR: I shall vote with my party on this Motion, but not because I want to turn the Government out. I want to keep them in. If I thought they were going to he turned out, I would not vote with my party. Hon. Members opposite should preach to the people the things that would help, namely, efficiency in industry, the need of co-operation, and of brotherly love.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why does the hon. Member say it in that tone?

Viscountess ASTOR: Preach those things to the people, for they only will pull us through. I beg hon. Members opposite to think well what they are
doing. We might get the foreign markets, but if we have not got peace at home, but only have beautiful speeches from the Government Bench and class hatred in the country, matters will not be improved. Hate is very contagious, and I agree there are conditions which make for hate in the people that live in them. I do not blame those people in the least, and I want to make those conditions better. There are thousands of people throughout the country who are not in the least interested in their possessions, but who are desperately interested in the condition of the majority of their fellow citizens. We on this side, or rather a great number of us, are willing to co-operate with you. We want to do these things, how can we do them when you go round the country telling your followers that Liberals and Conservatives must be opposed because they are in favour of capitalism?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I suggest to the Noble Lady that the question with which we are dealing is one of unemployment.

Viscountess ASTOR: And that is exactly what I am dealing with. I really do not see how we are going to get employment without capital. Lenin discovered that is was easy enough for the State to control supply, but that the State cannot control demand. You cannot control the demand so far as women are concerned. Hon. Members may laugh, but that is my serious conviction. I am a mother of six children. They will never be economically equal. but if I can teach them to do unto others as they would be done by, if I can teach them it is the duty of the strong to look after the weak, I shall be satisfied. Socialism is telling them that the strong must come down on the weak. That is why so many of us feel just as keenly about the system under which we live as hon. Members opposite do. This fight will have to be fought. I do not think we are going to get industry going until it has been fought. Men are sending their capital abroad. You cannot control that. I beg the Government to stop preaching these pernicious lies about Socialism up and down the country. If they think it is the truth let them go to the country. The sooner they do it the sooner they will be found out. It is essential for the welfare of
the country that we should get work going, but we shall never do it as we are proceeding to-day.
I am a simple-minded woman. I believe sometimes what people say to me. There are thousands of women who honestly believe that you have a remedy, and they think that that remedy is Socialism. I do not for one moment believe that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Government Bench themselves hold that view. They have learned since they have been in office, as the Prime Minister said to-day, that it is very easy to talk about the ills of the world, but very difficult to put them right: The time has come for honest, plain speaking. Go out and tell the people you have made a mistake and want co-operation, and not only the world abroad will be made better but the world at home will be improved and you will find thousands who will willingly follow you.

Mr. ASQUITH: I shall not attempt to follow the Noble Lady in her characteristically pieturesque and discursive survey, but in the very few minutes in which I may claim the attention of the Committee I shall devote myself to the more practical issue of ascertaining how we are to vote to-night. The Prime Minister, in his interesting speech, made, I am glad to say, a large additional contribution to our knowledge, which, before, was very sketchy, of the actual programme of the Government with regard to unemployment. I confess for myself that if the matter had been left where it was left a week ago, I should have felt constrained to have voted myself, and to have used any influence which I may possess in so advising and counselling my followers, for the reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary. A more unsatisfactory, a more jejune, a more inadequate, and in some ways misleading account, has never been presented to Parliament. As has been pointed out, there is nothing so striking in the whole picture, there is no contrast so glaring and so tragic, the contrast between promise and performance. It was made clear to the ordinary elector when he gave his vote last December that the remedy proposed by the Labour party was to put work before maintenance. In practice they have put maintenance before work. And there is still a great deal that re-
mains to be explained, and still more to be achieved, before we can be satisfied that anything substantial is going to be done.
There was a remarkable passage in the Prime Minister's speech which the Noble Lady very pertinently-referred to. It was the passage in which he said there was a great difference between a platform programme, and pamphlet panaceas and actual administrative and legislative work. It is a pity the right hon. Gentleman did not think of that before the General Election. I should like to refer to the dangers of what I may call amateur propaganda in referring to a speech the right hon. Gentleman made in this House on the 15th November last year, before the change of Government. Speaking of the right hon. Gentlemen who at the moment sit near me and speaking of their proceedings, he asked, and I agreed with him:
Where is the well-devised scheme based upon a detailed and complete conception of the problem that the present day unemployment presents?
That is what we want to know to-day. And then he went on:
Where is all the co-ordination, the keeping of the skilled, the helping of the families, the training of the children? When have you had produced to this House, or where outside this House, any legislation or any administration, any co-ordinated movement that was directed carefully, concisely and accurately to meet the precise problem of unemployment? You have had none."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1923 col. 402. Vol. 168.]
That is what the right hon. Gentleman said to the occupants of the present Front Opposition Bench, and he was cheered by the Labour party. Yes, I too ask where are the well-devised schemes based upon a detailed and complete conception of the problem? Where are they to-day? The right hon. Gentleman piled up adjectives. He used generalities. He laid down counsels of perfection. But when he came to sit on the Government bench and had to deal in office, with the aid of draughtsmen and under the criticism of skilled expert advisers, he realised the difficulty of the problem for the first time. It is a great advantage that we now have the admission of the right hon. Gentleman of the experience which he has had. I do not in the least hesitate to associate myself with his indictment of the late Government with regard to the hiatus between their professions and
their actual achievements. Sir Montague Barlow, who was Minister of Labour at the time the right hon. Gentleman made this speech about well-devised schemes, also had a scheme, described by the Prime Minister himself, which was full of grandiose intention. It was a scheme under which altogether £100,000.000 was to be spent in the course of last winter on the unemployed [interruption] to come on part out of the rates and taxes and in cart from other sources. It was certainly the general impression produced by the speech at Plymouth of the late Prime Minister—an epoch-making and earth-quaking speech—that £100,000,000 was going to be expended in the current winter on unemployment. The General Election, however, came, and I will give my right hon. Friend the benefit of that-, because he and his colleagues, instead of working this great machine, were occupied in trying to get. votes for Protection. Still, making every allowance, we have the extraordinary fact, as we have been told to-day, that the total expenditure up till the 21st March in the present year was only £250,000. I am not making myself responsible for that figure. The right. hon. Gentleman opposite, speaking with full responsibility, and with official knowledge, would, I believe, not have, made a gross miscalculation as that! I am not concerned, except incidentally, with what the late Government did or neglected to do. The practical question is what is now being done -by the Government. in power? The Prime Minister, who, I know, is unavoidably absent, told us a number of interesting facts in regard to the various channels in which this stream of unemployment can be dried up. I am not complaining of any of them, for, they would be most excellent if properly administered, and, if adequately supplied with funds and powers, they would effect a beneficent purpose. I think that would very largely assist the labour market and provide remunerative, and, what is more important, productive, employment for those now out of work. I am not criticising the objects and schemes, but I observe that they are almost all of them proposals which only last week, or a week ago to-day, were anticipated, adumbrated, and sketched out in considerable detail by the right hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Rusholme (Mc. Masterman) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara). Arterial roads which I understand are to be constructed out of Imperial resources and without any local conditions.
There is Electricity. This is a point to which personally I attach the very greatest importance, as I think does everybody who really desires the permanent development of the productive resources of this country. There is nothing in which we are more behindhand, as compared with foreign countries—and particularly in Europe, Germany and Frances—and I have no doubt it is the case with America also—there is nothing in which we are more behindhand than in the proper organisation, generation, and distribution of electrical power. The right hon. Gentleman says that out of 15 schemes, so I understood him, nine have been accepted and adopted. There arc, however, two serious gaps with which the Government have not attempted to deal. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman referred to local interests. He used the euphemistic expression—a very odd expression coming from a Socialist—that local interests have got "to be squared." But there is only one way in which you can square local interests; or rather there are two necessary ingredients in the process. The first is -by buying them off, and if they will not be bought off—and very often they will not be by voluntary negotiation—to acquire compulsory powers.
The history of this matter is very curious. As a matter of fact, as far hack as 1921 a Bill was passed through this House on the responsibility, I think, of the Government of the day, and was sent to the House of Lords, which would have given compulsory powers. [An HON. MEMBER "1919, not 1921!"] Well, that makes it all the worse. The House of Lords, in one of those strange and not unusual fits of tenderness for minor interests which is the hall-mark of its legislative activities. omitted from the Bill what was, of course, its core and essence these compulsory powers. I did not hear from the Prime Minister that the Government are taking steps to acquire these powers without which the whole of this electrical development will become nugatory and ineffective for years to come.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): The Prime Minister indicated that he would.

Mr. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has been in office for five months—not a long time, I grant; still a Bill of this kind would have passed through this House by a large majority and with a small expenditure of public time. At any rate, we shall be glad to hear from the Government not only that they intend by legislation to acquire these essential preliminary conditions, but that they are going to bring in their legislation at the earliest possible moment.
There is another Department of national development referred to by the Prime Minister which might give considerable employment to those now out of work — I refer to afforestation. I do not see my right hon. Friendthe. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Arland) present. He is one of the greatest experts in this country on the subject. This matter has been going on, but it has not been going on at anything like the rate, nor on the scale, that it ought to have been. Why? The. question here, so far as I understand it, is not so much the absence of compulsory powers as the absence of cash. We should have been glad to know from the Prime Minister as to whether or not the Chancellor of the Exchequer was ready to provide the fonds which are so urgently needed. No one would begrudge this productive expenditure. I have only alluded to these schemes for the purpose of saying that I, and I believe all my friends, consider that they might tend to be a very considerable advance on anything we have previously done.
A long and sometimes disappointing experience of public life has taught me one thing, and that.is the value, and, indeed, the necessity of patience. No one has had more occasion to exercise it than I myself. No one would be so unreasonable as to expect right hon. Gentlemen opposite to achieve these things within four or five months. What however, it is important to know is that the schemes are on the stocks, that they are real living propositions, and that they are to be supplied with the necessary resources and statutory powers, without which they cannot in the long run enure, even to a partial settlement of the unemployment problem.
I am prepared to give the Government a little more time in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear?"] Which of you is not? The late Government talked about £100,000,000. What is their record? I should like to know what number of unemployed the £100,000,000 have set to work. They have less reason than anyone to complain of a certain tardiness on the part of people newly installed in office who, as the. Prime Minister stated, were without administrative experience in matters of this kind. I am for fair play. [HON. MEMBERS: "Bear, hear !"] Why those ironical cheers? Is it intended to suggest that I or any other Liberal has become—that I am willing to leave to others with a richer and more copious rhetorical power than I possess to describe. Because we are willing for the moment to give the Government more time to turn round, are we to be called the subservient and obsequious minions of the Labour party? We want to give them fair play. [An HON. MEMBER: "For how long?"]
This is, of course, a paper programme put forward by the Prime Minister. I am willing to believe in complete good faith, and with the concurrence and the cordial co-operation of his colleagues. It is, however, a paper programme and so far, to all intents and purposes, it has not fructified and it has not brought in the unemployed. It has not put people to work who were out of work when the Government came into office. Therefore I shall only give my consent to the. Government proposal before the Committee on the distinct understanding that this Vote is to be kept open, and that we are to have opportunities—of which I can assure the somewhat sceptical hon. Members behind me if we may judge from the expression of their faces—we shall take advantage to have the fullest and a perfectly independent scrutiny of the results which have been actually obtained. That is our attitude, and I think myself it is the only attitude worthy of the position of a great political party. We have no reason to love the Labour party. But as a party we are not so anxious to pay off scores, or to indulge in rancour and revenge, as to contribute., if we can and in whatever way we can, towards a real settlement of this great and overwhelming national problem of the employment of our fellow subjects
who, through no fault of their own, find themselves out of work.

Mr. BETTERTON: I want to say a word or two upon the statement which has been made by the Prime Minister and which was also referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). Both those right hon. Gentleman stated that the party to which I belong had said that we proposed to spend £100,000,000 on work schemes, whereas the amount we actually spent only came to £250,000. That is a complete travesty both of what Sir Montague Barlow said and of the facts, because the late Minister of Labour never, at the Stationers' Hall or in this House or anywhere else, suggested that we had provided £100,000,000 for these schemes. What he did say was that we had put into operation a great national programme, and he was careful to point out that it was made up of three different items. First of all, he said it was made up of money which has been provided by the Government; secondly, of money which has been spent in acceleration of the normal programme; and, thirdly, money which has been spent in consequence of the encouragement which the Government gave. I remember that my right hon. Friend made substantially the same speech in this House as at the Stationers' Hall when he stated that these schemes amounted to £100,000,000. That statement was accurate then and it is now, and I am prepared to justify it, as my right hon. Friend did in a long speech he made, item by item, in which he said that £100,000,000 would be provided for these schemes. Therefore, to say that we only spent £250,000 is an absolutely travesty of the facts.

Mr. ASQUITH: I simply quoted the Prime Minister's statement.

Mr. BETTERTON: I quite appreciate that. I want to say how this money was made, up, because it is not only relevant, but it is only fair to my right hon. Friend, who is not at present in this House, to state what his position was. First of all, in this £100,000,000 he quite clearly and candidly stated that there was the sum of £35,000,000 which was included in the railway programme, and it included also £38,250,000 which came under the Trade Facilities Act, and the sum of £4,500,000
which was sanctioned under the Export Credits Scheme with another £4,000,000 which was guaranteed under the Export Credits Scheme. The most surprising thing of all was the omission of the Prime Minister to say that, under the Unemployment Grants Committee presided over by Lord St. Davids, £16,100,000 worth of work was approved. All his was to be started during the financial year, and when we went out of office the greater part of that had actually been started, and no less than £24,000,000 under the Trade Facilities Scheme was actually in operation.
In addition to that, Sir Montague Barlow referred to sums which were directly spent by the Government in acceleration of the normal programme, and he told us the General Post Office were undertaking work up to about £1,000,000, much of which is already in hand. He also said the Admiralty were allocating £860,000 for anticipated works, and that nearly all the contracts in question had been actually placed. He also told us that the Office of Works and the Forestry Commissioners were spending further sums up to about £150,000. In addition to all that there were two great road schemes, one for £7,000,000 and another £14,000,000, and Sir Montague Barlow said he hoped that the whole of the £7,000,000 would be expended before the end of the financial year, but for reasons he gave rather less was spent when we left office, but at any rate the amount was well over £5,000,000 actually spent.
With regard to the £14,000,000 road scheme, it was pointed out that, in regard to a scheme of that size, it could not be expected or desired that the money would be all expended at once, but it was a scheme to be spread over a considerable number of years. I have just given this plain statement of the figures, because I thought it only right and fair to the House and to all parties to remove the complete misconception which was created by the Prime Minister. We are just as anxious to clear up misconceptions as anybody else, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley asks us how many men we put on to work, we want the country to know the facts, and in order that there may be no doubt on this point, I ask the Minister of Labour to lay a White Paper definitely stating the work
provided for when we went out of office compared with the work provided for at the present time. I hope he will see his way to lay that White Paper, because misconceptions and these misstatements on vital questions of fact ought to be cleared up in the interests of every party in this House.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): Of course I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in supplying any information I can. The last thing want to do is to misrepresent anybody, and I can only give the figures presented to me by my staff, after careful instructions to see that the facts are as stated.

Mr. BETTERTON: I should be the last person to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to misrepresent anybody or anything, but I want this White Paper to show exactly where we stand. When that is done, I am quite certain the statement- of Sir Montague Barlow will he found to be erring rather on the low side than on the high side. With these few remarks I ask the right hon. Gentleman to lay a White Paper on this subject.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I agree with the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) that there is an air of unreality about this discussion, because I do not believe that the Opposition who put down this Amendment really des[...]re to see the Government defeated to-night. My own opinion is that they would rather fear an appeal to the country, and with Toxteth before their eyes they know there is very little hope whatever of achieving a different result in this House from that which exists at the present moment. I am not so much concerned with the details of the case put up by the right hon. Member for the Hillhead Division of Glasgow (Sir R. Horne), because I have tried, as far as I possibly can, to get down to the roots of this unemployment problem, and I have come to the conclusion that all the bits of tinkering any party can do, as the House is constituted at present, are of no use in solving this problem, Taking Members who are prominent on the Opposition Benches, the discussion to-night has failed to get; anywhere near a consideration of the problem that confronts the country. The Leader of the
Opposition, in considering this question some time ago, assumed, as I gathered, that the unemployed problem in this country was passing from the stage of a mere epidemic to an endemic stage, and that it was becoming a permanent feature of our industrial organisation. I believe the right hon. Member for Hillhead has recently declared that modern industry is able to function without the employment of the million persons now unemployed.
The right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame), in the course of discussion in this House a night, or two ago, stated that throughout the whole of the countries that were connected with the War, we had at the present moment industrial capital far in excess of the requirements of modern society on its present basis, and we had the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) a night or two ago echoing the statement that so far as America even is concerned, there was excess of production to an alarming extent, and we might expect to be flooded out by goods from that country. We hear from the benches opposite, time and time again, gibes at us on these benches because we do not persistently, as they say, back up demands for increased efficiency and for increased production. We know only too well that industry is organised at the present moment, increased production means an increase, ultimately, of unemployed. It is no use attempting to blink that fact. We have had it time after time. Period after period of unemployment has followed one another with sickening regularity, until now it has become apparent, that, passing from the epidemic stage, we have approached that period of permanence with our unemployment problem that demands far more drastic and far different treatment from that which we are able to give it at the present time. That being so, it is no use continually talking about solving unemployment by schemes of roadmaking.
I understand it is a fact that the late Government quickened up the production of boots for the Army. I believe they were doing their best to deal with the problem from that point of view, and they anticipated demand. I am not speaking now with exactitude, but I believe it to be the case. I do not blame them for doing that. They were doing what, I
think, any Government would do in like circumstances. They were dealing with the problem that confronted them at the moment, and they anticipated demand, and while that did help at that moment to solve a problem, the situation now is that the present Government are only able to place 10 per cent. of the orders for Army boots, because of the anticipation of the late Government. So that helping to solve the problem a few months ago by the late Government has increased the problem of the present House, and it will go on from Parliament to Parliament, and from Government to Government, and I say it is no use attempting to find solutions by this particularly haphazard method.
The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth chided us of this party with creating these problems of unemployment because we continually preach class antagonism and class hatred. I am not an unrepentant believer in the class struggle. I know of no Socialist party that preaches what is called, on the Opposition Benches, the class war, There is no word in the Socialist vocabulary of that description. It is not the preaching of class war, but I believe there is a struggle, and I believe the history of this House is a record of that struggle. I believe the party of hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway originally came here as an outcome of the struggle of the commercial classes against the old landed aristocracy, and our political history is a struggle of one class against another for political power. It has been a struggle for political power for century after century. At the present moment, the working classes are struggling for political power, and they will have to transform the power they win to the economic field before they can bring about what they believe to be real liberty so far as the mass of people is concerned. I believe that your system has produced that struggle. It is not we who create it. We simply explain what we find, and we are chided at times from benches opposite that we do not exhibit the brotherly love that we ought to. We do not find it anywhere in modern industry and modern society.
We have to take facts as we find them. A short time ago, in my constituency, 3,000 me[...] [...]ere turned out of work at a
few days' notice and added to the unemployed. I am not condemning the owners of the pits, who say they were compelled to close down because those pits had become uneconomic, but there is the fact that 3,000 men were turned out of work, and there is no employment for them. There is no profitable employment for their labour, and, at the present moment, they are added to the unemployed who already exist. I was told that, so far as output was concerned, those men were turning out more coal per man at the pits than was the case in 1914. Their individual output had increased, yet there was no economic use to be found for their labour in those particular pits. That is the problem which confronts us, and we are not going to solve that kind of problem by continually discovering whether these people can make a road here or a road there. We on these benches believe that, ultimately, we shall be driven to a reorganisation, gradually, of our industrial system; otherwise, the whole of this problem will prove insoluble. At the present moment we in this country are not faced with this terrible poverty problem because we lack the means of producing wealth. I have heard politicians say from time to time that we in this country are poor because of the destruction of industrial capital during the War. It. is not true. The right hon. Member for Hendon told us a short time ago that we have more machinery than we know what to do with. That is true. We have more power to create wealth than we ever had before, and, quite apart from the physical destruction which was caused where actual fighting took place, the War left the world richer in the power of production than was ever the case before in the whole of its history. In spite of all this marvellous power, we are confronted with 1,000,000 men for whom can be found no useful or economic employment.
The whole thing is so monstrous that those of us who believe in some change in the industrial system are confirmed in our belief from day to day. I believe that only in so far as we begin to bend our energies and our attention to probing this problem, and trying to find a solution from an entirely different point of view than has been the case before, we are not coming anything like near to solving the problem. I understand that a great
number of Members desire to cake part in this Debate, and it is not my intention to prolong it. So far as I am concerned, I care little how this vote goes to-night—very little, indeed. The question as to whether the Labour party remains a Government or not for three months longer or six months longer, leaves me cold. If Members on the Opposition Benches have thought we shrink from fighting the constituencies, they have made a huge mistake. We on these benches are just as much entitled, and a little more entitled, to express dissatisfaction with the smallness of achievement of the Labour Government than anybody else in this House, and I am quite sure I am voicing the opinions of a large number of my colleagues who sit around me when I say that we are not satisfied, that we want to see more done, but we recognise that part of the difficulties of our Government is due to the fact that they dare not propose the schemes they have in view, because they fear that by proposing interference with vested interests, they will rouse the opposition of those below the Gangway who will throw them out of office.

Mr. FOOT: May I point out that no such scheme has yet been produced, and, further, that, as the hon. Member will acknowledge, the only constructive suggestions for interference with vested interests have come from the Liberal party?

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am not saying that that is true of all Members below the Gangway, but I say that the fear exists in the minds of the members of the Government that they will receive such opposition from a section below the Gangway to an extent sufficient to throw them out. We do not mind at all. We think that, if we were thrown out by an incident of that description, 'we should come back here a Government, not only in office, but in power, with a majority in this House. I believe it is only by tackling this question from the Socialist point of view that we shall come to anything like a solution of our difficulties. Science and -invention are doing all that they possibly can, and will ultimately break down the conceptions of industry that have hitherto controlled it. I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who express such fear of the changes which I believe to be imminent in industry, will discover that, whether
they like it or not, they will be driven by sheer economic pressure to accept the position that many of us lay down.
We hear expressions of opinion as to how we are going to extend electric power. I am quite content to go on doing all that can be done for electricity, but. I am not prepared to see this mighty power pass into the hands of private and vested interests. If our Government were to propose that all their schemes should be based on private interest and control, I, for one, would oppose them, unemployment or no unemployment. We have to think of the future as well as the present. We are not concerned to see this tremendous power pass permanently into the hands of private and vested interests. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead talked about schemes in connection with electricity that were being put forward by private enterprise, but private enterprise has never touched municipal enterprise in matters of that kind. Glasgow Corporation and Manchester Corporation have done more for electrical power in the last three years than all your private companies in England, Scotland and Wales put together. They have done it from the point of view of public control, and it is in that direction that we are proving the supremacy of our type of organisation over the type of organisation advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. We stand by that, and we believe that our method alone is ultimately going to get us out of the quagmire in which the present social and industrial organisation has plunged the people, and kept them poor in spite of the mighty power that mankind has had placed at its disposal.
We have this marvellous fact, that, as the power of mankind increases, the poverty of the people remains just about the same. Sir Josiah Stamp, who is often quoted in this House with approval, has recently declared that, from an economic point of view, the classes do not draw together. There is no drawing together at all; the chasm that yawns between rich and poor is as great now as it was 100 years ago, and I declare here that the poverty of the mass of the people of this country, in proportion to the power of production, is deeper and denser now than when the country, from the point of view of modern conceptions, was sunk in a state of penury and poverty. Compare the condition of our
country 150 years ago with the condition now. It is no use talking about wealth, capitalism or private enterprise solving problems. It creates more problems than it knows what to do with. As far as we on these hack benches are concerned, we are viewing this vote with equanimity. Appeals to the country do not concern us at all, because we know that ultimately we are coming here, not in a minority but in a majority, and then we shall show what we can do so far as dealing with the problem of unemployment is concerned.

Viscount WOLMER: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I listened particularly to know what he was going to do about it all; but that, so far as I can make out, did not transpire. It was very like the policy of the Government; it ended all in words. I think the hon. Member's very brave words would have carried a little more conviction if he had told us that he was going to do something to enforce the views he has so eloquently expounded upon the Government, which has no policy at all. I am glad, however, to see the hon. Member there, and some of my hon. Friends in the same quarter, because I wish to remind them, if I may, with all civility and courtesy, of some of the things they have said in the past, both in their election addresses and in this House. I know that they are, every one of them, stern, unbending men of principle, and that, whether it is against their own party or against the wicked Tories, it will not make the slightest difference. If they think the right course is not being pursued, they will show it by their votes in the Lobby. In the first place, may I remind the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) of this passage in his election address at the last Election:
This is the first general election to be fought on the question of unemployment, a problem which will bring down successive Governments until it is solved. I mean to make it the main issue of the contest, and to prove to the electors that the prosperity of the whole community depends upon its speedy settlement.
We shall see whether the hon. Member is going to do anything to enforce those views to-night. Then the hon. Member for Dundee, from whose election address I have been supplied with a quotation—

Mr. MAXTON: You will not blame that on to the Clyde!

Viscount WOLMER: I have some more quotations from the Clyde. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Morel) said:
The Labour party's programme of productive schemes of national work on a large scale offers the only alleviation of the immediate problem of unemployment. The Labour party has been persistently urging this, not vaguely, but in considerable detail, for the past four years, just as it has been urging the extension of the school age limit in order to prevent hundreds of thousands of young people from being flung on a stagnant labour market.
Not only have the Government failed to produce their schemes, but they have also failed to raise the school age limit, and we shall be interested to see what view the hon. Member for Dundee takes of it in the Division to-night. I see the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in his place. We know, at any rate, that he is a man of his word, and he certainly will not be deterred by mere party considerations from doing the right thing. This is what he said, I think, in his election address:
Practically nothing has been done for this terrible evil which is sapping the very lifeblood of our race. Neither this Government"—
that is to say, that of my hon. Friends on these benches—
nor the previous one started any drastic reform to help the unemployed. Labour says State undertakings must be begun at once.
And then, in this House, on the 21st January of this year:
It the Labour party form a Government, and does very little more than past Governments have done to solve the problem, they will deserve the same fate, the same censure, and the same scorn that the other parties deserve from the mass of the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1924: col. 625. Vol. 169.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: Hear, hear.

Viscount WOLMER: I am glad to see the hon. Member is still of the same opinion. No doubt. he will vote accordingly. Then there is the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean):
The question which requires most immediate attention by the Government of this country is the problem of unemployment. The Labour programme of national work includes the improvement of national resources by town planning, housing, land drainage, reclamation and afforestation,
dock and harbour schemes, the development of transport by road, rail and canal, and the establishment of a national system of electric, power stations.
Not a single one of those schemes has seen the light. We have only had the same vague generalities from the Treasury Bench that we have had from hon. Members at the hustings at election time.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Noble Lord did not quote my election address. He would have found I said that the most practicable and immediate step I knew of which could be adopted was not really the making of roads, but to restore the wages of the working people that the previous Government had taken off. I want that done as soon as I can.

Viscount WOLMER: No doubt the hon. Member will suggest in the course of the Debate how it can be achieved, and if he does not get a satisfactory answer from the Government he will go into the Lobby with us. One more speech from the hon. Member for Govan at Glasgow on 10th February of this year.
If it suits the Liberals' purpose to defeat the Tory Government, and put a Labour Government into office, that surely must not be considered a notice to the Labour Government to be moderate in its proposals, and to throw aside the principles on which its propagandists preached the gospel of discontent, and rallied the multitude around them. It is not a notice that the programme on which we fought the election must be either scrapped or watered down to secure for a year or two Liberal support.

Mr. MACLEAN: I think I said it must not be taken as a notice to the Labour Government.

Viscount WOLMER: I am much obliged for the correction. I have only a typewritten copy. One more quotation, this time from the Secretary for Mines, who before he got on to that bench, where all just and honest men are contaminated and leave their principles behind—I have been there myself so I know what a very demoralising place it is—said:
The Labour party has a positive remedy for unemployment. We have demanded the adoption of national schemes of productive work. These measures could be immediately put into operation.
It is quite right to describe this Motion as a Vote of Censure. It is a Vote of Censure on the Government, and the party the Government. represent, for two
things, first, for what they promised before they came into office, and, secondly, for what they have failed to do since they came into office. May I say in answer to what fell from the last speaker, that we of the Conservative Party have time and again tried to bring the Socialist party to an issue on this question. We were prevented by Liberal votes last Thursday. I notice, by the way, that the Prime Minister made a special complaint of his difficulty in failing to get the Closure on many occasions. We offered him the Closure last Thursday and he did not accept it. We propose to offer him the Closure again to-night, and I am afraid he will not accept it either. If there is a failure to join issue on this question, it does not come from the Conservative party but from hon. Members below the Gangway, who do not wish to turn this Government out because they are frightened of an Election. They know quite well that three-fourths of the Liberal voters will either vote Conservative or Socialist at the next Election, and this is the last time, in all probability, in which they will be in this House. Everyone knows that, and therefore when we are treated to a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) who says, "In view of the weighty pronouncement which has been made by the Prime Minister, he has reconsidered the attitude that he would have adopted last Thursday"—that attitude was one of supporting the Government in refusing the Closure" he still intends to assist the Government in staving off a decision on this question," what does the Prime Minister's weighty pronouncement amount to?
In the first place, there was the amazing assertion that of the programme sketched by Sir Montague Barlow last autumn only £250,000 had actually been spent in hard cash. I am very glad the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Betierton) has asked for a White Paper, which will state the facts and will show exactly how much of that programme has been carried out. But what did the Prime Minister say in defence of his Government after having made that extraordinarily inaccurate statement about the Conservative party? He said absolutely nothing. He talked in generalisation about afforestation and electrification. We have heard all that sort of stuff before.
[Interruption.] The hon. Member may say that, but, at any rate, we have, as the White Paper will show, accomplished certain things, and we can claim, and the White Paper will prove, that the performance that the late Conservative Government accomplished, until its tenure of office was interrupted, was commensurate with the programme that we put before Parliament, and was one of which no political party need be ashamed. We have asked for that White Paper, and we do not fear its publication in the least. The Prime Minister talks about afforestation. He says, "We cannot get on with afforestation until we can nationalise the land" [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I took down the phrase he used:
Afforestation must go with land settlement.
Then he complained that he had not got the legislative power to acquire the land. I am not misrepresenting him. But the facts are that the Government has hundreds of thousands of acres in its own possession—Crown lands—w4hich at has not planted, and previous Governments have been carrying out a certain programme. The Prime Minister says in his judgment 30,000 acres a year ought to be planted. The Labour party dame into office in January. The planting season runs from the beginning of February to the end of March. They have just been holding office right through the planting season. If the Labour party really had carefully co-ordinated schemes for afforestation, they would have made some attempt, at any rate, to increase the rate at which afforestation was going on. There is an ample supply of seedling trees in the nurseries very largely to extend the programme of the Forestry Commission—I do not say to go up to 30,000 acres a year at once, but very largely to extend the programme. Therefore this afforestation programme which the Prime Minister trotted out is nothing but an afterthought. It is nothing but a little window-dressing. If the Government. really had prepared plans, such as they led the country to believe, and such as they spoke about in their election addresses and on the Floor of the House when they sat on this side, they would have found it perfectly easy to extend that programme, to increase it, and to speed it up. The same in regard to electrification.
It is all very well to say these things take time, but why did not hon. Members explain that when they were addressing the electorate and criticising the late Government on the Floor of the House? On the contrary, in nearly every one of their speeches the word "immediate" occurred, and the impression they conveyed to a large section of the community was that once the Socialist party came into power work would be found for an enormous amount of the unemployed. I hope that this will make our friends on the other side a little more careful at the next election. I am certain that they do not wish to mislead the people. They will go to their constituencies, I trust, and say, "There is no doubt that we promised that the advent of the Labour party to office would mean an immediate solution of a large part of the unemployment problem, but we have found that it was not quite so easy as we expected. Therefore, we cannot renew the promises we made to you at the last election. We can only promise something much more modest." I sincerely hope that hon. Members will adopt that attitude at the next election.
Hon. Members on this side greatly regret, personally, that we have had to criticise so strongly the Minister of Labour, and to deliver such strong attacks upon him, because I do not think there is a more popular Member on either side of the House than the right hon. Gentleman. It is not his fault, but the fault of his colleagues. He has been put in an intolerable and impossible position. He was not alone in making these promises. They were made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit round him, and he is saddled with the responsibility. He is charged with the task of giving effect to the promises and is not allowed to do anything by his Prime Minister, or his Chancellor of the Exchequer, or his Cabinet colleagues. In fact, he is put up as an Aunt Sally to be shied at from all quarters of the House.

Mr. FINNEY: Is the Noble Lord in order in referring to the Minister of Labour as an Aunt Sally?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): If the Minister of Labour does not raise the point, it is unnecessary for any other hon. Member to do so.

Viscount WOLMER: The responsibility for this position rests upon the Labour party as a whole. Hon. Members opposite have not heard the last of this matter. They have had to admit that they have not been able to produce the schemes which they led a large section of the community to suppose they had ready in the pigeon-holes of the cupboards at Eccleston Square. They have been unable to produce a scheme to solve the unemployment problem, and they take refuge in the statement that the unemployment problem cannot be solved without a complete socialisation or nationalisation of the means of production. distribution and exchange. If hon. Members opposite really believe that, why do not they go to the country on that. issue? [HoN. MEMBERS: "We did!"]

Mr. MACLEAN: If the Noble Lord who has been so industrious in going into the election addresses of hon. Members on this side had taken the keynote of those addresses, he would have found that in each address it was pointed out that the questions with which they were dealing were only temporary, and that the only solution for the economic problems was Socialism.

Viscount WOLMER: If that is what hon. Members opposite mean, why do not they face the position, instead of being in the intolerable position of bearing the responsibility of office and not being able to carry out the policy which they believe is going to settle the problem? They ought to do what the Conservative party did at the last election. The Conservative party went to the country on the question which they believed to be a solution of the unemployment question. The Conservative party may be right or they may be wrong in their views as to the solution, and hon. Members may think that we are bad electioneers, or that we are bad tacticians, but as a Conservative I do not regret the action that the Conservative party took last year. It is an action which will always be remembered to the honour of the Conservative party. They might have stayed in office three or four years longer, but they preferred to go to the. country, even at the risk of defeat, in order to put before the people a policy which they believed to be right for the country.
Are hon. Members opposite less courageous and less patriotic than the
wicked Tory party in their attitude towards the unemployment question? If they really believe that Socialisation is the remedy, they ought to produce their Socialisation policy, introduce it here, challenge the House of Commons on it, and appeal to the country on it. The Prime Minister has his eyes fixed on the foreign horizon—although he diverted his glance to below the Gangway this afternoon—and he is quite content to allow the Minister of Labour to be shied at, and himself to come down occasionally and talk vague generalisations about afforestation and electrification. That is not a contribution towards the unemployment problem. The truth is, and ion. Members opposite know it, that the Labour party is trifling with the unemployment problem and is not acting up to the opinions it expressed when on this side of the House. I cannot help giving expression to my regret as to the way in which these incorruptible apostles of political purity have fallen from grace, and expressing the hope that they may yet see the error of their ways.

Mr. MACLEAN: The speech to which we have just listened, and the wonderful researches that have been made by the Noble Lord into the electioneering history of hon. Members on these benches, shows that, at any rate, hon. Members opposite are beginning to take notice of that which hitherto, or until quite recently, they did their best to ignore, namely, the growth of a very strong Socialist and Labour movement in this country. The very fact that they have thought it necessary for the purpose of this debate to go into our speeches and do us the honour of reading the statements made in our election addresses, shows that they are now interesting themselves in a particular side of the political life of our country, and I am certain that the more researches they make and the deeper their interest is in these things, the more they will come to appreciate the point of view, not merely of hon. Members on these benches, but of the millions of electors who do us the honour of reading our addresses and listening to our speeches and then come to the conclusion that we are the only individuals who can properly represent them in this House. It. may be that one, day the Noble Lord himself may be constrained to vote for a Labour and Socialist
candidate. I hope, therefore, that his researches will continue.
The Noble Lord asked why we do not take our courage in our hands and go to the country on the Socialist issue, It is not we who are seeking to censure the Government; it is his own party. Why should we play the game of the Noble Lord and his party? Why should we make ourselves catspaws for the other side? When we have anything against the leaders of our party, against the members of the Labour Government, we can discuss the matter with them and tell them what we want done in a manner in which the Noble Lord cannot do it. Consequently, we consider ourselves masters in our own house, and no amount of appealing on the part of the Noble Lord will take us across the road to his dilapidated tenement. The Noble Lord also suggested in some degree that we were in the power of hon. Members below the. Gangway, and particularly of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). I think that the quotation which he read from my speech in Glasgow on 10th February should completely dissipate that idea from his mind. I went further and pointed out that we were going to have no dictation from the Member for Paisley at the very time when he. was saying that unless the Labour Government, once he and his party had put them in office, did what the Liberal party desired them to do they would turn us out just as readily as they did the previous Government, and I said that we should have no dictation from the Member for Paisley or any other Member of the House, and that we were going on our own policy.
My colleagues and I are quite unconcerned as to whether we are defeated to-night or not. I challenge any hon. Member opposite to come and oppose any of the 15 of us who come from the Clyde. We are not concerned with whether Members below the Gangway go into the Lobby with hon. Members opposite. We are quite free and we look to the Division with perfect equanimity. Be the majority for or against us, we are quite unconcerned. We came into this House after fighting elections in our constituencies for a total of £100 or £110. It does not cost us much to fight an election because
of the devotion and self-sacrifice of the thousands who work to send us here. Hon. Members opposite cannot get that because they have to pay for everything that is done for them, while those who work for us do not expect payment. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) in that great speech which he delivered to-day criticising the Labour Government for its lack of performance according to its pledges, reminded me of the individual who had a lapse of memory and consequently could not remember his past. The right hon. Gentleman spoke to-day as a man who had no political past and as if his political knowledge had commenced with the advent of a Labour Government in this country.
I can remember when the right hon. Gentleman stood at that Box as Minister of Labour, in the same position as the right hon. Member who is now being made the Aunt Sally of the Noble Lord and his Friends, and he had to expound a labour policy on behalf of the Coalition Government, and the right hon. Gentleman and those who sit beside him, and hon. Members below the Gangway, cheered wildly the statements which he was making. The Noble Lord was one of the supporters of the Government. He sat on these benches for the first two years of the Coalition Government, and then he went over to the other side with the die-hards. The programme of the Noble Lord, which he supported in those days, and the programme of the right hon. Member for 11 illhead, who was Minister of Labour, was. the following: A national maximum—not in one trade, but a national maximum 48-hour working week. Have we got that? Who has broken a pledge in that You have had four years in which to bring it in. We have had four months. The Noble Lord sat with them.

Viscount WOLMER: I never gave the Coalition Government any support. I may have sat over here for a short time, but not for two years. But the support that I gave to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was very soon dissipated. Very few Members of this House were more sedulously opposed to him than that section of the Conservative party of which I was a member.

Mr. MACLEAN: I understand that the noble Lord received the coupon in 1918.

Viscount WOLMER: I declined it.

Mr. MACLEAN: At any rate, you admit that you supported the Coalition Government, when it came in, without the coupon. You wore a free lance; you could go where you chose.

Viscount WOLMER: Yes.

Mr. MACLEAN: Well, you chose to give them your support.

Viscount WOLMER: No.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to address the Chair.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Leader of the Opposition was then a Minister in the Coalition Government, and he supported the programme, sitting behind the then Prime Minister, while he was declaring his policy, and sitting behind the Minister of Labour the right hon. Member for Hillhead when he was declaring the Government policy. These are the points of the programme.
A living wage for all workers,
and they reduced the wages of the workers by £700,000,000 a year during the last three years.
Workers to have (a) a voice in the working conditions, (b) a financial interest in their work, (c) provision for unemployment.
Whitley Councils to be developed.
Healthy houses and expeditious transport.
Coal mines, State purchase of mineral rights, a levy on purchase price for social amelioration of miners, miners to help shape conditions of industry, reorganisation and economical management of mines.
Labour representation on controlling boards of mining areas.
A free career to talent throughout the industry.
A Committee on output to be set up immediately."
Then there was trade policy:
Free imports with certain exceptions, not specified.
No Government support of foreign exchanges except to prevent complete collapse.
No dumping of foreign goods for sale at sweated prices.
Power to prevent any flood of imports competing unfairly with British goods through a collapse of exchange in the country of origin.
No undue profits at the expense of the community to be made by reason of protection of unstable key industries."
There is a host more, but that is quite sufficient for the moment.

Mr. LUMLEY: What is the document from which the hon. Member is quoting?

Mr. MACLEAN: It is the future as described or edited by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs when Prime Minister.

Captain EDEN: What is the connection between that document and Members on these benches?

Mr. MACLEAN: The ex-Prime Minister and present Leader of the Opposition sat beside the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs for four years. He was a Cabinet Minister in the Coalition Government. You talk of broken pledges. There they are. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Horne), the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) and others on the benches opposite have the deliberate audacity to come before this House as critics to-night. They sat for four years supporting a programme of that kind. Having broken every one of their pledges they have the audacity to challenge a Labour Government for not doing in four months what they failed to do in four years. It is hypocrisy. The right hon. Member for Hillhead said, "Where is the political hypocrisy?" Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well for what they were supposed to stand. The same Government came in on a policy of housing. No Member of the House to-day who was in the House at that time objected to any statement that the Leader of that Government made, but backed him solidly with votes until the last year of the Coalition, when a number broke away and became the Diehard group, which pulled the Coalition Government down and brought in the Conservative Government. But at the time to which I am referring, when some hon. Members Who are here to-night were backing the then Prime Minister, he told the House, in speaking of housing, "We have played with it; we have toyed with it for 50 or 60 years." The "we" referred to the Tories and the Liberals Who then made up the Coalition. Now you come and talk about the four months
that the Labour Government have been in office. You condemn the present Government for not redeeming all Labour's pledges in four months, and you say that we deserve to be turned out. Well, turn us out to-night! There are more men on the Opposition side than on this who are afraid of an anti-Government victory to-night. There are men opposite who are shivering lest the Government should be defeated. The Noble Lady who represents the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) said she was shivering to-day, and there are many probably who are inn a worse state than the Noble Lady.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Not at all.

Mr. MACLEAN: I say one thing to the hon. Member who interrupts—"Come down to Govan, and I will show you what a scare means. Come clown and oppose me."

Mr. SOMERVILLE: When I have a few moments to spare I will.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. MACLEAN: There are many other matters that I could have quoted from this book, but hon. Members who have been through the last three or four Parliaments know the book pretty well. It is the "War Magazine," with speeches by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who was then Prime Minister, by the late Mr. Bonar Law, who was later Prime Minister, by Lord Long, and by 101 other men who were all behind the "little Welsh Wizard" at that time, and they were all outlining a wonderful and glorious programme for the future of this country. There were to be homes for heroes, pensions for soldiers, land for ex-service men. We were to have slums swept out of existence. There were to be new conditions established in this country, which was to be a wonderful nation. We were all set upon the highest purpose and with the highest ideals that any individual could suggest. We were going to make this country the most wonderful nation in the world. And here we are to-day, after four years of Coalition Government, after one year of Tory Government, still with over 1,000,000 unemployed.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Do not forget six months of Labour Government.

Mr. MACLEAN: No, less than five months. Six months is the time for which the Noble Lord's licence was endorsed, and that is what he has in mind. We have been little more than four months in office. The pledges that hon. Members opposite gave in 1918, and the programme which they outlined, have been smashed into fragments. They have carried out no part of it. They have cheated the public out of the things that were promised to them. The Labour Government has not a majority in this House, but the Coalition Government had the greatest political majority known in this Chamber during the past 50 years. They could have done everything that they wanted to do and everything that they promised. There was no section or party in the House that could have prevented those things being done. All that they lacked was the will to put those things upon the Statute Book. It conies with a very ill grace from Members on the opposite side to seek to saddle Members upon this side and Members on the Front Bench with the responsibility for all the muck and mess and political filth that has been left behind by the patty now sitting opposite. We do not always agree with our Front Bench, and that is where we differ from Members opposite. We do not blindly follow our leaders into the Lobby because they are our leaders. If we follow them it is because we believe they are acting properly and doing right. We have our grievances against our Front Bench for not proceeding as fitly as we desire an various questions, but we are not going to lend ourselves to the political tricks of men who threw up office but are now watering at the teeth to get back into office—some of them—while others are frightened lest there should be an election while they have not a chance of being included in a Tory Cabinet. They need have no fear. Even though there should be a defeat of the Labour Government and an election next week, there will not be a Tery Government in this country for the next 50 years. I am putting it at 50 years because that is about as long as I expect to live, and what comes after I am gone will be no concern of mine.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: After you, the deluge!

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member's party will be in the deluge. I submit to our leaders, to the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, that there are many of us on the back benches who are going with them into the Lobby tonight because we will not be parties to what is being attempted by hon. Members opposite. We are going into the Lobby to support them and we will fight for them loyally against the attacks of those who have no right to criticise and no right to attack a Labour Government. But we on these benches want to lay it down clearly, distinctly and emphatically that they must get a move on. We represent people who are in misery, and those people, on reading the newspapers, cannot but have their regrets, cannot but feel that something is lacking, when they find that oar Ministers have not time to explore avenues and sort out schemes for dealing with unemployment, cannot devote time to working oat methods whereby some of the hardships of working-class life might be ameliorated, but have plenty of time to go to flunkey banquets in full dress. I say frankly to hon. Members on the front bench that Labour supporters in the country are growing restive under these things, and sooner or later there will have to be a stop to these functions, and the Labour Government will have to deliver the goods which they promised to the people.

Captain F. GUEST: I am anxious, as a member of the Liberal party who is unable to-night to follow what I take to be the guidance of the Leader of that party, to give some reasons for my attitude. I have followed Debates of this kind very closely, and it is not necessary to go back further than last Thursday to see that those of us who voted for the Closure on that occasion should follow up that action to-night by a logical vote and vote against the Government. It is true there were only 15 or 16 of us, but I hope that those of us who, on that occasion, voted in favour of the Closure will give the logical vote and the corollary vote to that and vote against the Government. I have no intention of wasting the time of the Committee by going over a great deal of the material which has been discussed to-night. I condense it all into one sentence. I am not satisfied that the promises by which votes were obtained by the Labour party at the General Election have been translated into action in the
five months they have been in occupation of those benches. I have heard to-night the ineffectiveness of their proposals described by the Leader of the Liberal party, who says they are practically worthless paper schemes. I support that view so strongly that I propose to register my vote in disapproval of this waste of time.
At the end of the Debate on Thursday night a challenge was thrown across the Floor of the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. I am glad that one party in the House has shown sufficient courage to take up that challenge, and that to-night it has been taken up by the Conservative party. My only regret is that it has not been taken up with equal activity and strength by the Liberal party. It may be said that a great mistake was made by many of us in putting the Labour party into office, but it is no good going back over ancient history. Some of us wished to register an Opinion against the Socialist party as well as against the Conservative party, but the machinery of Parliament did not enable us to do so. That was a vote that I shall regret to my dying day, but as far as I am concerned, I propose to remedy any harm I may have done by a steady opposition to the Labour party as long as it remains on those benches. It may he impertinent on my part to address any remarks to the Liberal party, because I am not quite certain what it is going to do. I do not think the Members themselves are quite certain. I have an idea a good many of them will abstain. I do not understand what they are sent to Parliament for if they abstain, and I think it better to vote definitely one way or the other.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: They tell me they have decided to expel you.

Captain GUEST: I feel it will not be regarded as an impertinence, however, if I address a word of warning to the Liberal party. It may be said I have no right to do so, but I think as a member of the party that I have. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have the honour to represent a Liberal division and I have the nomination of a Liberal Association, and as such I have as much right to speak on this subject as any member of the Socialist party, and if the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) stays in the House much longer he will appreciate
the truth of that remark. My friendly warning to the Liberal party is that it is in grave danger of disintegration To start with, it acted on principle and I take off my hat to anyone who acts on conscientious principle. It felt that its first duty was to put the Conservative party out of power. Since then, however, the policy of the Liberal party has come down merely to a question of tactics, and the next stage after tactics is drift, and drift invariably brings about public contempt—the one thing which a party should be very careful to avoid. I have listened to a great many speeches by leaders of the Liberal party of the first class and the second class, and I cannot understand how; after those speeches, they can have any doubt in their minds as to which way they should vote to-night, if it were not for one thing, and that is fear of the challenge which was issued by the Prime Minister across the Floor of the House. I do not believe any party can retain its strength or any good cause can gain by being afraid of facing an issue.
Nobody wants a General Election. I do not suppose that any of the three parties want it, but if political events force us to an issue of such a character, the party that is bravest in a matter of this kind is the party which, in my opinion, will command the public support of the millions outside. If I had any doubt at all as to the wisdom of recording a vote to-night against the Labour Government, it has all been removed by some remarks dropped by the Prime Minister in the course of his speech this afternoon. He admitted on the Floor of the House only three or four hours ago that until the Socialist party obtained the power to introduce their full programme, he did not pretend that he had any cure for this evil of unemployment. Therefore, I say, why should we, the so-called constitutional parties in the House, allow them time during which they will increase their power and prestige and strength? I suggest that there is a way in which the constitutional parties can quite easily get out of this tangle. [An HON. MEMBER: "Constitutional parties?"] By constitutional parties, I mean those which are opposed to the Socialist programme, which, when you get down to bedrock, is neither more nor less than capital levy
and nationalisation. The Liberal party do not believe in it, the Conservative party do not believe in it, and I for the moment call them the two constitutional parties in the State.
I submit that the proper course is, for those who are prepared to put the interests of their country first and the interests of their party second, to join together before it is too late and take common action against the common foe. If we allow the Socialist party to choose their own moment—and it is child's play for anybody who has been brought up in the Whip's Office to know exactly what they want to do—to choose a moment when it is difficult for what I may call the richer classes to oppose some important item in their programme—and the vote-catching illustrations of the last few months are quite enough for anybody to know what their game is—if we do that, if we allow them to choose their own moment to go to the country on some such issue or set of issues, it seems to me that there is a grave risk that they may be returned with an independent majority.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: "The fear of the Lord came upon them."

Captain GUEST: I think we should look this matter in the face while there is still plenty of time, and it can be done by appreciating this fact: To experiment in Socialism is, at any rate, dangerous for a country like England, depending, as it does, perhaps even more upon confidence and credit than any other country of a similar size. Even a very little experiment, if tried, would, I am confident, not only not relieve unemployment, but would add to it five-fold, and you would find the condition of the working classes worse than it is to-day. Therefore, I think it is up to us, if we have the courage and if we have the patriotism—those who believe alike in this matter—to take common action, to resist this gamble, and to do what we can for the millions, instead of the small section of the public, less than 4,250,000, which they represent.

Mr. LUMLEY: The right hon. and gallant Member for Stroud (Captain Guest) has delivered a speech characterised by great sincerity and courage, and I believe that he will have the respect of the majority of hon. Members in this House, even though they may not agree
with him. We were entertained just now by an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). The burden of his argument, if I understood him aright, was that this first Labour Government was not so very much worse than the Coalition Government, and I think perhaps he represents public opinion on that subject. In his closing remarks, he said that unless this Government got a move on, they might not have his support and those of his friends very much longer. I listened to the speech of the Prime Minister, and I have been wondering what the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) found in it to make him change what I understood was probably the attitude of the Liberal party. He had the usual denunciation of the motives which prompt the Opposition, he had the usual declamation, "Thank God, I am not as other parties are," and the usual cry that, while everybody else was clearly out for party advantage, he was out to help the unemployed. Besides that, we were told that, in his opinion, Scotland and Wales were first-rate countries in which to start electricity schemes, and we were told, in an eloquent passage which I will not attempt to quote, that trees—I took them to be trees—were very lovely things on the hills of Scotland, But they were all the constructive suggestions which were made. There was no scheme for afforestation, there was no scheme for electrification, all that there was was that it would be an excellent thing to try some of these schemes, and if the right hon. Member for Paisley and his party are satisfied with that, they are welcome to it.
We have heard a lot about the difference between the promises of this Government and their performance, and I think the case has been proved sufficiently, at any rate, so far as the masses of the people are concerned, that this Government can make wonderful election promises, but ii finds that it cannot carry them out. That does not relieve the House of Commons from looking at this question, not from a party point of view, but trying to look at the vital importance of this problem of unemployment and how big it is. It is obvious, from the declaration of the Minister of Labour on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, that the Government regard this great volume of unemployment more or less as permanent, and it is, therefore,
necessary to see what they are doing in their general policy to try and reduce this great volume of unemployment. The first plank seems to be the development of Russia. As I represent the Port of Hull, I am all for the development of trade with Russia: the more the better. But if it is going to do such a tremendous amount, why are not the Government prepared to guarantee a loan to Russia? Then we hear that owing to the new atmosphere which has come over the Foreign Office since the Prime Minister went there, very soon there will be a settlement in Europe. I hope very much that will be the case. It would mean that, with luck, we are going to have some of the old markets which we had before the, War, ready again to take our goods. That would be an excellent thing. But surely we have got 1,000,000 mere men to provide with work in this country than we had before the War. It is, therefore, no use merely restoring old markets. We want fresh markets. I regret that in this Debate, so far as I have heard it, there has been practically no mention of any development of trade within the Empire. I regard unemployment and the development of trade within the Empire as two things indissolubly hound up. We are often told that talk about Empire trade is only the chatter of Imperialists. To me, it is bread and butter to the people of this country. I do hope hon. Members opposite—who, so far, have not shown a very great interest in this subject—now that they have formed a Labour Commonwealth group in their party, will begin to look at this subject with a view to trying to help unemployment here. We have learned in this Parliament to pay no attention to the speeches which the Prime Minister or other Members of the present Government make before an election; but the speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon has taught me one other thing. I refer to his travesty of figures of what the last Government provided for unemployment. He said that only £250,000 had been spent. My hon. Friend, the late Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, was able to show that was a travesty, and to nail—I say it deliberately—that lie down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

Mr. B. SMITH: Is it in order for an hon. Member to characterise the statement of a responsible officer of the Ministry as a lie?

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman meant to indicate that the right hon. Gentleman was telling a lie, it was distinctly out of order.

Mr. LUMLEY: If it is out of order, I unreservedly withdraw it. It was an extraordinarily inaccurate statement for the first Minister of the Crown to make.

Brigadier-General Sir H. CROFT: It was a terminological exactitude.

Mr. LUMLEY: It leads me to take all I hear from the present Government Front Bench with a considerable grain of salt. I understand this Vote is now a- foregone conclusion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is, unless the remarks of the last speaker have been able to overcome that fact. This problem may, in a sense, have been the downfall of the last Government. Unless it is grappled with on broad lines, and unless every factor, not only Russia, but the whole Empire, is brought into the purview of the Minister of Labour in his efforts to deal with it, this grave problem will continue to break Governments.

Mr. E. SIMON: I want for a few minutes to speak, as representing some local authorities, with special reference to a deputation of the Municipal Corporations Association to the Minister of Health and Minister of Labour early this week. Four representatives of local authorities got up one after the other, representing important towns, and said, almost in the same words, "We are getting to the end of our tether. We cannot keep the work going. We cannot keep these men employed unless you give us increased grants," and they asked particularly that grants for main roads should be increased from 50 to 75 per cent. We are very glad indeed to hear from the Prime Minister to-day that he is going to give us not merely 75 per cent. but 100 per cent. for main roads. There is one point which needs safeguarding. We in Manchester would prefer to keep the management of our own road work. I do not know whether the Government intend to pay the whole of the cost, and leave the road making to the local authorities. But we do feel that the work ought to be done by the local authorities, and a great many of them would prefer to pay a portion of the cost themselves to having the Govern-
ment coming into their areas, and doing the work for them. In any case, we take the action of the Government as a sign that they are prepared to give us early and substantial help in this matter. We are glad to welcome this because the deputation was received rather frigidly on Tuesday, and we were not led to expect what we have heard to-night.
I am glad this Debate has had the effect of accelerating the action of the Government on behalf of unemployment. The Prime Minister said he was not going to bring chaos into the whole conflicting question of local and national finances, and that he was not going to encourage ramshackle doles. We are not going to ask for that. Governments have been a little timid. We simply ask for a reasonable increase in the grants which are already being made for work such as this work on main roads, which, from the point of view of unemployment, is, admittedly, national work. We are not representing only distressed areas such as Middlesbrough and other places, but, as a matter of mere justice, we say this is a national work, and the Minister of Labour himself has said that he regards it as such. Therefore we say that the grants at present being made are totally inadequate. The average grant paid to the local authorities of great cities all over the country by the Government for this kind of work is under one-third. Two-thirds of the cost fall on the rates. The rates have got to such a high point that they really cannot stand any more, and, therefore, an immediate increase is needed. We are very glad to have this increase on the main road grants, but there are other things where an increase might also be given. The Minister told us we had not made out a very good case in the matter of suggesting work which will be really remunerative from an industrial point of view, excepting perhaps work on the main roads.
May I suggest one thing which would be remunerative? A great deal of work has been done in many towns in the way of laying down tennis courts and howling greens. We have in Manchester received a grant of about one-third of the cost of this work, and we have laid out 200 hard tennis courts and 20 bowling greens. The result is that many thousands of people are getting games which they would never have got but for this unemployment problem. A great deal more could
be done in that direction if the local authorities were given a more substantial grant. It may not give a direct industrial return, but there will he a return in the increased health, happiness and well-being of the people who get decent games, and fresh air and healthy conditions. If the Government would give a grant of two-thirds of the cost of the work instead of one-third, I believe in the course of a year or two it would do a great deal to revolutionise conditions in our great cities and to relieve unemployment at the same time. It would enable a very large number of playing fields to be fitted out, and that would be a permanent achievement of value to the people of this country. There are other things which could be undertaken without any danger of introducing chaos in local finances. All we ask is that we should have a grant of two-thirds instead of one-third of the cost as at present.

Mr. TOOLE: I have sat here to-day wondering how many hon. Members are prepared to give suggestions to the Government for dealing with this great problem of unemployment. As a new Member of this House, may I say that I very much regret this question has been made a matter of party politics. Hon. Members have spoken as if the object was simply to provide party and political capital. It is a very serious subject. If a man is out of a job it is not because he is a Liberal or a Tory or a Socialist, but it is largely because of the blundering policy of statesmen since the War terminated. So serious is this that in the city in which I live—Manchester—this week-end great unemployed demonstrations are to take place. Some one has said that hungry men are apt to become angry men, and unless we are prepared to deal with this question otherwise than-on party lines I am afraid there is likely to be trouble.
One of the most interesting speeches I have listened to was that delivered by the right hon. and gallant Member for Stroud (Captain Guest). It is pleasing indeed to see anybody thus finding his spiritual home. But what amazed me about that speech was the alarm it expressed at the growth of the Labour party. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that you cannot engage the population in a great war, you cannot call upon young men and women to make tremendous
sacrifices on behalf of their country without their learning something, and the one thing they have learned as a result of their recent experience is not to pin their faith or their social salvation to the old constitutional parties. I use the term. "constitutional" in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud used it. I deny, however, that the Conservative or the Liberal parties are the only constitutional parties. If this party has done nothing else, it has shown in the four months it has been in office that it has as deep a regard for the constitution of the country as any party which preceded it.
This subject has been discussed today as if it were an almost new problem. It is a very old one. In pre-War days almost always 5 per cent. of the working classes were unemployed—at least 5 per cent. and those unemployed were always used by employers to keep down the wages of the men at work. In those pre-War days men knew what it was to tramp the streets in search of a job. There is nothing worse in our social system than the life of a man, with a wife and family, walking the streets and asking for work which he cannot find. But still in those days there was some chance at least of finding work. It was possible for a man in search of work to get it some time or other. It is not so to-day. Why is this great difference between the unemployed problem of 1913 and of today? It is due to the attitude of our statesmen. Had it not been for the trade unions, there would have been more unemployment, and the present situation is due I claim to the blundering statesmanship and weak policy of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), of the late Mr. Bonar Law and of the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin). Had Mr. Churchill not spent the taxpayers' money in assisting to fight the Russian Government, we should not have been faced to-day with negotiations with Russia for the establishment of trade relations between that country and this. When we took office four months ago there was a good deal of talk about confidence and credit. I assert that the confidence and credit of this country is better to-day than at any time since the War. When we took office four months ago we were in the position very largely of an applicant for the key of a house. That
house was No. 10, Downing Street. After 30 years' agitation we have secured that key. It was very unwillingly surrendered. When we took the place over we discovered a foundling on the threshold left there by the right hon. Member for Bewdley, who said in his speech on the 15th January, that so far as he and his party were concerned there would be no fractious criticism from them and that in any matter where they could get unity in the House whether in regard to agriculture or unemployment they would certainly not be behindhand in putting something into the common stock for the advantage of the country. That speech ought to have been read by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) before he opened out this afternoon. It appears to me that if we could just get that spirit we might do a great deal for the solution of this unemployed problem.
I happen to be a member of a municipality. That municipality deals with the problem of unemployment and general administrative problems. We do not deal with these subjects in the spirit I find in this House. I should like to see a Committee of all parties formed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If for the benefit of the unemployed, why not? Every section of this House professes sympathy with the unemployed, and I see no reason why men of good will, instead of indulging in this fractious criticism, should not combine to do the best they can and to cooperate for the purpose of finding a solution to this great problem. [An HON. MEMBER: "They cannot (do it!"] They cannot do it. But it appears to me if these things can be done by the local authorities, they can easily he clone in the House of Commons. I see no reason why it should not be so.
We have been told to-night that if this Vote is carried we shall have to go to the country. Personally I think the sooner we go to the country the better. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not know the feeling of the country at the moment. I move about to a large extent in commercial circles. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite may think that sounds strange, but we have a certain amount of business ability on this side of the House. Hon.
Members opposite would be amazed if only they knew what the business ability was on this side of the House! Hon. Members ought to know the good effect that the administration of only four months has had upon the commercial community of great Britain. We have won thousands of converts among the commercial men in this country. We have made a tremendous effect upon the country. We might as well say it because nobody opposite will do so. Take the result of the, last election but one. [An HON. MEMBER: "Take the last."]

Mr. BUCHANAN: That was a vote for the Communists.

Sir H. CROFT: That is true, that is just what it was.

Mr. TOOLE: I know Liverpool. I once fought a contest there. It is the hotbed of Conservatism. If the Labour party can go to Liverpool and do what we have done there and send one Member to the House of Commons, God knows what we will do if you send us to the country. Personally, I am convinced that if we go to the country, if you turn us out, the people of the country will turn us in. They will send us back again with a working majority. It must be an unbearable position for the Prime Minister and the Government to be in to receive from the Opposition, one nag from below the Gangway, and another from opposite, to receive condemnation for each in turn, and to have to endure the sniping that has taken place during the four months they have been in office. One thing is certain. It is almost impossible for any Prime Minister to introduce definite plans when he is not certain of the situation from one week to another. It is impossible for the Minister of Labour or anyone else to come to this House with certain plans when they cannot get the co-operation of the other parties to the fullest possible extent. I have seen what goes on. I have been in the Lobby with Liberals and I have been in the Lobby with Tories.

Sir H. CROFT: Which do you like best?

Mr. TOOLE: We will leave that point. As a matter of fact, if we go to the country it is almost certain that the people will see, and know, that hon. Gentlemen opposite are merely using an occasion of this kind for the purpose of
making political capital. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are you doing?" As a matter of fact, I am educating you! We are charged with not having produced a definite scheme for the solution of this great social problem four months after taking office. I came to this House as a consequence of the complete failure of a recent Minister of Labour—I refer to Sir Montague Barlow—to do anything for the unemployed. I came here as a protest, and, if I may say so, a very good protest. Hon. Members connected with the Opposition have each had their turn. They have had their turn at this and other problems since the War. They had their turn before the War. We are having our turn now. The difference is that in the case of hon. Members opposite and below the Gangway they had great majorities to hack them up. We have no majority, and we Dave to depend on the divisions between hon. Members opposite and hon. Members below the Gangway. Our task is extremely difficult, but we are doing the hest we can, and hon. Members opposite in those limited conditions and circumstances could not have done any better.
When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) was in office the unemployed used to tell a story of an unemployed worker travelling from Glasgow to the Cheetham Hill district in Manchester where the Jews reside. It took him three weeks to do the journey, and when he got there he sang at the corner of the street for coppers. He sang for two hours all kinds of Scottish songs, and then he passed his hat round, which naturally was returned empty. He then looked into his hat and said—[An HON. MEMBER: "Rabbits."] "Having scrutinised your faces very carefully, I now regard myself as lucky to get my hat back." I think we are lucky to get the hat back to-night, but we are doing our best, and the country knows that to such an extent that if for mere party politics to-night you turn the Government out, the electors will see to it that we are sent back with a working majority.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am sure the Committee has listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Toole). I only wish it were possible for me, in the short time at my disposal, to go at greater length
into the subjects which he raised. I will, however, content myself by saying that I think the cloak of innocence worn by the hon. Member's leader would rest with much better grace on his shoulders. I think it lies somewhat curiously in the mouth of the hon. Member for South Salford to charge us with making a partisan attack when he himself began by imputing the whole of our present evils in regard to unemployment to the work of myself, the late Mr. Bonar Law, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). If the hon. Gentleman had been a Member of the last Parliament, he would have remembered some very vigorous assaults on the Government then in power on similar Votes to this. I think he would have played his part as a man in those discussions and in the Division, and I think the last thing that would have entered his mind would have been that he was taking part in a partisan Division.
10.0 P.M.
This has been a most interesting Debate. This month of May has been one of the most changeable in weather that I ever remember, but I do not think that there (could have been any more remarkable changes of temperature than those I have observed on the benches below the Gangway last Thursday and to-day. Last Thursday the thermometer on those Benches stood at freezing point, but to-day it has warmed up to temperate. I imagine that the decision to keep the Labour Government in office for a further period is dictated possibly by the desire to complete -the whirlwind campaign of which we have heard so much, when through every loud speaker in the country the electors will be urged to throw out of power the very Government which the Liberal party are voting to-night to keep in office. I gathered so much from the Leader of the Liberal party to-night, and while I cannot compete with what he called the copious and variegated vocabulary of his colleagues, or the chiselled sentences and phrases of himself, I will do my best to justify the vote we are going to give to-night.
I propose, in the first place, to make a few observations upon the speech of the Prime Minister. It is a tribute to the importance of this Debate that we no longer have the Minister of Labour in charge, but
we have brought down to the rescue the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal. I am rather afraid to enter into any Biblical similes to-night, because there has been a dispute between two distinguished Scotsmen on this subject and because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) was corrected by the Prime Minister in some references he had made. I will not attempt to compete with them, but I will confine myself to observing that however much I may be tempted to break any of the first Nine Commandments I shall not be led to break the Tenth Commandment, which forbids me under all circumstances to covet my neighbour's oxen. I cannot help wondering how the Minister of Labour himself is feeling at this moment. The words occur to me
Achilles ponders in his tent.
The Kings of modern thought are dumb.
The Prime Minister has improved on the statement he made last week, and I think we may find in his speech two reasons why nothing has yet been done: an asseveration concerning his own innocence and inexperience, and a certain number of platitudes. I say this in no offensive sense, because I am myself a master of platitudes, and a platitude is simply a truth repeated until people get tired of hearing it. The same treatment is often meted out to the makers of platitudes, I might call them platitudinarians. It was meted out to Aristides for the reason that people got tired of him being called "The Just." I cannot, however, allow to pass unchallenged the claim of the Prime Minister to a double dose of innocence and inexperience. Nobody has greater respect than I have for the Prime Minister, but I have never associated him with innocence. Nor can I imagine that when Blake wrote his "Songs of Innocence" he had in his mind as his prototype the present Prime Minister. Nor can I believe when he said,
Little lamb, who made thee?
he was thinking about the sheepfold in Eccleston Square. Nor will the plea of inexperience do. The Prime Minister claimed that it was the inexperience of Ministers that made them sign a certain manifesto, of which we have heard a great deal, but he forgot for the moment that two of those signatories had already held high office—one of them was a Mem-
ber of the War Cabinet—and I am quite sure that there is little that either of them has to learn that experience can teach.
The Prime Minister said we had brought this Debate on for partisan purposes. Well, was it for partisan purposes that he used to bring Debates on He suggested that we were doing it to better our future. I do not quite know what he meant by that. He could not have meant financially, for I have found myself a considerably poorer man by taking part in politics. Could he have meant that leaving out the financial side, it was better to be in high office than not to be? I do not think anyone who has been in high office would assent to that doctrine for a moment. Let those who have held high office answer him. His comparison, with which he made so much play, of the present unemployment with past periods of unemployment was misleading for this reason. In comparing figures of unemployment, you must have regard to the period of depression and to the capacity for recovery in trade. We are passing through a longer period at present than we have done in the past, and there are few who would say that there are signs yet of such recovery as can indicate in the near future a period of normality.
Is there no novel feature in the unemployment to-day compared with the unemployment before the War? That is a question on which those at the Ministry of Labour and Board of Trade must satisfy themselves before they are in a position to decide what is the best means by which they can combat unemployment. It is quite true that the settlement of Europe roust play a part of the first importance in the rehabilitation of our trade, but will that be sufficient? It was pointed out by one of my hon. Friends that the number of unemployed with which we have to deal to-day is proportionately far larger than the increase in our population, and we want something more than the rehabilitation of Europe. Are the Government really sanguine that any one of the measures of which we have heard to-day is going to prove a "positive remedy for unemployment" I could not help remembering, while the Prime Minister was speaking, and while he was holding out hopes of providing more employment, that only within this last fortnight, when the Financial Resolution on the Unemployment Insurance Bill
came before this House, the Government had budgeted for an unemployment figure of 1,000,000 for this year, for next year, and for the year after, thus showing that, whatever they may say as to their hopes of the result of any measures they may bring forward, their belief is as conveyed in the projected legislation, that they cannot hope within the next two years to see any substantial and permanent reduction, and that, therefore, they are as far off to-day as they have been since they came into office from providing that "positive remedy" of which we have heard so much.
One of our complaints is that there is nothing new in any of the proposals of the Government, in spite of the promises made at the Election, and though there may be differences of opinion as to the pace at which this or that policy has been carried out, the fact remains that the Government, are merely carrying out what has been the policy of the last three. Governments, and have added nothing to it. Did the Government consider for a moment the question of unemployment when they proposed to abolish the McKenna Duties? My own belief is that those duties were abolished from a desire to make an offering on the altar of Free Trade, and without any regard to their effect. I am the more ready to believe that when I have in mind the speech made in defence of the course taken by the Government by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who gave no reasons connected with unemployment. He merely treated us to those acidulated asperities with which we are familiar, and with silky innuendoes against employers. He offered no reason as to whether or not those duties would lessen or increase employment. The result was that, having made that offering on that particular altar, his decision was received with enthusiasm by the disciples behind him, by the disciples below the Gangway, and, as I heard in correspondence only yesterday, by the Association of Automobile Sellers in the United States of America. Have the Government considered the possibilities of Empire trade, and the possibilities of how that trade may be affected if any of the existing preferences on our manufactures are withdrawn? I think that is a relevant point, and one on which, I am sure, the House, at any rate when the Preference Debate takes place, will be
glad to have information. Whatever course they may be going to take, whatever view they may hold, they must have come to that decision by some process of reasoned argument, and the House will be interested to hear it.
One other question. There is no more tragic sight in this country to-day than the amount of unemployment amongst young people. That is a question which I know the Minister of Labour has near his heart, as every Minister of Labour must have. But has he considered the possibility of extending considerably the work which our Government began—the work of fitting young people for life in the Dominions, where there is more room, and helping them to a profession and a start where prospects are better and where markets have more hope of development than in an older and more industralised country like our own? Is there no hope of helping these young people in that way? Has the Minister examined that question, and, if he considers that nothing can he done, can he tell the House why? After all, we cannot wait for what I have heard alleged in some quarters as a positive remedy, that is to say, for the creation of the Socialist State; because, although there are speakers on the other side who take refuge in saying that their remedies would not take effect until those halcyon days arrive, yet there is no one on those benches who believes that the Socialist State—whatever may be meant by that term—is a thing that can be introduced in the whole plenitude of its integrity within a period of two or three years.
I do not know whether we are expected to wait till then, but if we are, there is nothing new in a Socialist State. It must have been WO years before the Christian Era that they had a Socialist State in China. It was founded by a great philosopher, whose name remains to this day; and he was so disgust ed by finding that—owing, I suppose, to our frail and fallen human nature—the results of that State falsified his hopes, that he disappeared with its fall, leaving behind him one proverb which I think deserves to be remembered, that, as the result of his State,
The poor became poorer, with a poverty that war perfect.
From time to time in human history we have seen that repeated, and we can see it being repeated under our eyes to-day in Russia. It is not there that the positive
remedy which this country will support can be found, nor is it in that direction that any positive remedies that may be put forward by the Front Bench of the present Government can be found or sought for. It can be no remedy for the present discontent. But our chief object to-night is to challenge the Government on this Vote, for not having attempted to fulfil one of the most definite and clear promises that was ever given to the electorate at the time of an Election. I would remind hon. Members opposite that, long before many of them entered politics—and I will deal with nothing in which any living Member of this House took a prominent part—there was an election won by a cry which combined in mystic union three acres and one cow; and I would remind the House that, as none of these things materialised, the party that obtained a majority on that cry was out of office for the better part of 20 years. I just mention that by way of warning. I know perfectly well, none better, how easy it is in the excitement of an election to give promises which are difficult to fulfil. I know perfectly well, and I think everyone in politics must recognise, how tempting to many people is the avidity of the electorate for definite promises of amelioration. I have a friend who a short time ago met a gentleman in the street who tried on him the old confidence trick of ring dropping.

Mr. PRINGLE: Giving interviews!

Mr. BALDWIN: My friend was not taken in, but he said to the man who had attempted the trick upon him, "If I do not hand you over to the police, will you promise that you will never try this on again?" And he replied, "No, I will not. How can you expect a chap to he honest when there are so many mugs about who will believe any story you tell them?" There is a great deal of human nature in that, and a great many votes were got at the last election by hon. Members opposite by that undertaking that they had a positive remedy. When the positive remedy was asked for here it was found that there had only been passed a cheque which has been returned with the mysterious letters "R.D." upon it. Some of my hon. Friends behind me know what those letters mean. For the benefit of hon. Members opposite let me tell them they mean "relegated to dooms-
day." The Labour party has always claimed—we do not admit this, but it is their claim—that it is more than any party in the House the party of the workers, and they claim this because many of them have been workers themselves, and it is undoubtedly for that reason, and that reason alone, that they get many of the votes they do, because in the present day, when there is so much suspicion, partly natural and partly fomented, between the classes, many voters feel that they can trust Labour members. We believe that it is that very trust that has been imposed upon by these promises. We believe that in giving our vote to-night we are giving it as a protest against the handling by the Government of this subject of unemployment after the protestations which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have made. We may or we may not win in the Lobby to-night. [An HON. MEMBER: "You hope not!"] The hon. Member has no right to say that. An hon. Member for Glasgow spoke of us shivering. I am not accustomed to shivering. On this side, we are absolutely unrepentant and unashamed, and whenever the time comes to accept the challenge which you, in due course, will throw down, we shall be ready to take it 1113 and fight you in every constituency in the country.

Mr. CLYNES: We have listened to a very entertaining commentary on a great variety of speeches, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour must have given his attention to the Debate with pleasure, because he has heard scarcely a word of criticism of the particular Vote that is before the Committee. We have been reminded that there was once a Socialistic State, away back in the remote and dead centuries, and that even then those who constituted it succeeded in producing poor people, so poor that their poverty could not be excelled; it was so perfect that no improvement upon it could be made. We, in these days, know something of poverty and its causes, and we say that those who defend the system which produces the poverty now endured by the poor in Britain should be ashamed of the stand which they are taking.
The least that can be said, and said in terms of hopefulness for the poor, is, that these Debates are tending more and more to lift an old problem on to a new
plane. No one now accepts the doctrine that the State has no responsibility for the unemployed. No one now dare declare that private enterprise, private undertakings, private activities are equal to meeting the needs of the millions of working classes in this country. The State, therefore, is driven by the pressure of events and the force of economic facts to recognise every day, more and more, its responsibilities towards the unemployed. Indeed, so fully does each party accept the right of the working man, not merely to the opportunity, but to the certainty of work, that each party is competing with the other to produce a remedy that will secure that end.
These Debates, unfortunately, are rooted in party inspiration. The main theme in the discussion to-day, as on last Thursday, has been the story of promises made as baits to the electors, and pledges offered to secure votes, and then broken with little attempt to fulfil them. We must think in terms of the last General Election. The right hon. Gentleman opposite caused that election because he said that he had discovered a cure for unemployment, That cure was expressed, roughly, in these terms: Millions of money were to be taken from the pockets, of the foreigner; those millions were, in the first instance, to be paid to the British farmer, who, in turn, would pay the labourer a higher wage than he had ever received before. That was the programme offered to the country by a party which makes no endeavour to mislead the electors of this country!
But that was not the only cause of the Election being forced on the country in 1923. I do not question the courage of my right hon. Friend, but he is not altogether devoid of fear. He fears the Labour party. Speaking at the Junior Constitutional Club, a few nights ago, he explained that, if the Election of 1923 had not been arranged or organised as it was, what would have happened would have been that, by the end of 1926, we should have had in power, with a majority behind it, the Labour party of this country. So it was fear of the future of the Labour party which inspired that endeavour by which he hoped to induce the electorate of Britain to respond to the specious promises which were then offered by the Conservative
party. The right hon. Gentleman talked of broken pledges. Why, the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT are packed with the pledges that have been uttered and broken by hon. Members opposite on this subject! Let hon. Members turn to the speeches put during the past four years into the mouth of the King. In each King's Speech it will be found that explicit promises have been made to deal, with this question, to afford a solution, to bring relief to the unemployed, and to provide the work which they were demanding. Year by year most solemn pledges were made in that manner.
The Prime Minister was able to show to-day that, although in the course of the last Election £100,000,000 was promised as the sum, to be spent in the course of last winter, a comparatively small proportion of that amount was expended in the actual conduct of any work that tended to absorb any of the unemployed. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Betterton), we await the figures which have been promised to-day in detail in a White Paper, and nothing has been said in the course of the discussion materially to disturb the conclusions drawn by the Prime Minister this afternoon. We have at least the satisfaction that, as a result of the sustained pressure, the ceaseless demand that we have made as advocates of the claim of the unemployed, parties now have been brought to that stage where all equally recognise their party's obligations in the matter, and where all will be driven ever to keep this question before successive Governments so as to shield the workman against the trials and privations which he has had to endure in the past.
We were asked what we have done, particularly in the case of finding work for the unemployed women by rearranging or relaxing the Regulations and conditions under which women were trained for employment. Between January and May more than double the number of women have been trained under the conditions of the present moment. The number of women unemployed as between January and now has been reduced by more than 25 per cent. In so short a period there is no corresponding record of effective assistance to unemployed women by any preceding Government which has held office since the unemployment problem became acute. We have
never alleged that by any one Measure in any one Session of any one Parliament any Government, Labour or otherwise, could solve the unemployment problem. We have repeatedly declared, and our words are on record, not only as expressed in this House but in our election addresses, that our international policy, our Budget, a succession of Budgets, a succession of Measures, alone can afford what might be termed a cure for the unemployment in this country. Our first Labour Budget has made some contribution to that end. We welcome this display of increasing interest in the future place and fortunes of the unemployed workmen and workwomen of this country, and we ask that all parties in Parliament should apply themselves to this question: Can the State employ men for mutual benefit and national advantage when private employers fail to engage them? That question has inspired the formulation of Labour programmes and that body of labour doctrine which has forced this problem to its present point of consideration, and if parties will join with us in affording an answer to this question, the benefit will not only be a benefit to the workman, but a benefit to the nation.
Have we not always said in this House that the measure of national wealth is the sum total of the national products. We have said that the greatest disgrace is idleness, whether displayed by the rich or the poor. We ask, that when remunerative service cannot be found in the private market it should be regarded as a State obligation to find it, and that the necessary State measures should be provided. That is Labour's alternative to the course foolishly and recklessly pursued as soon as the Armistice was declared, the course of pouring out millions of money for the idleness which then occurred, a course which was inevitable because the national workshops were closed, sold, or almost given away. The national obligation was neglected or evaded and the country was asked to face the prospect of men and women remaining idle for a very long time at a national cost of hundreds of millions of pounds. By this time it is admitted that that sum has been wasted, wasted except in the sense that it has bought off the people's anger and has afforded a certain
measure of security and investment against the disturbance which otherwise inevitably would have followed. Had that Labour doctrine been followed what would have happened? Even if we had to wait for a restoration and improvement of trade which in the ordinary process would have absorbed the women workers of the country in the meantime we would have kept these workers in the service of the State paying them money not as relief or as doles, but as wages to which they were entitled. That counsel was rejected whenever it was offered, and if it were repeated again it would be rejected once more.
What then did we find when Labour had to face its responsibility to try to reduce the number of unemployed? We found that both national and local finances were nearly on the border of ruin. Bankruptcy was the term used by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. We found that that condition of lack of means greatly intensified the difficulties which the Ministry had to face in organising or arranging schemes with the local authorities, through whose agency these schemes in the main have to be conducted and carried through.
It cannot be said that Labour has not tried to secure the restoration of trade by inculcating the doctrine of peace in industry in place of industrial disputes.

Sir H. CROFT: How many strikes have there been?

Mr. CLYNES: That is a matter of common knowledge. How many strikes have been settled? It is too well known that we inherited an atmosphere of strike and of conflict, created by our predecessors. When first employers of labour, organised and unorganised, sought economic case and betterment by reductions in wages, they were encouraged by the Conservative party in this House.

Viscount CURZON: Absolute rubbish!

Mr. CLYNES: We warned them that danger surely would be reached by that policy of diminishing the purchasing power of the masses of the working classes of this country, and after having suffered untold privations through reduced wages, is it to be wondered at that, as soon as any sign of trade betterment appeared, the working classes asked that some advance in their wages should be conceded
to them? One of the enduring causes of conflict has been at all times the employers' unwillingness voluntarily to concede any advance, however little, to the masses of the wage earners, and strife has been fomented by that mistaken and foolish policy on the part of the employers. I claim then that we have sought to give assistance to the unemployed by preaching peace in industry—[Interruption]—and by exerting the influence and the instrumentality of State Departments to secure agreements between employers and employed, and to hasten speedy settlements of conflicts wherever they have arisen, so that, while there have been too many stoppages, too many strikes, during our short term of office, those strikes have been made short in duration by the policy that the Labour Government have carried out.
It has been alleged, whenever the subject has been referred to—and it was referred to at some length by my right hon. Friend who began this debate this afternoon—that one way of affording great relief to the unemployed of this country would be to get going great schemes of housing. I was able to announce to-day that next week the House would have an opportunity of discussing, not merely the financial aspects but, I hope, the broad general outlines and principles of the scheme on which the Government have been working during the whole period of their short term of office. How mach we are expected to do in the matter in four months has been revealed in these successive debates. There is no wrong that we have not committed in that time. Whatever is the matter, nationally or internationally, why, it is asked, has it not been settled by this Government during its four months of office Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who associated with different Governments over a period of four years did things which even a Labour Government could not remove in four months. I remember very well the first Bill on an unemployment subject passed by this House. It was passed by a Conservative Government, but not voluntarily, not in accordance with any Conservative doctrine. It was another concession to fear. [Interruption.] It was due to the pressure of a small group of Labour Members in this House at that time on the Government of the day; and from that time to this, hon. Members on
this side of the House have, without ceasing, pressed the claims of the unemployed. They will continue to press them. They are being compelled, just as, eventually, all parties in this House will be compelled, to meet them; but through these 19 years there has been a continuous stream of effort, always being increased, and evidently still further to be increased in view of the acceptance, as we now see, of quite new theories by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to what is their duty in the matter of unemployment.
I can assure hon. Members opposite that we cordially welcome the spectacle of the Conservative party competing with a Labour Government for the solution of this baffling problem. I need, therefore, only add that if we are to be asked to go from this House to the country to be tested upon what we have done, and what others have prevented us from doing, we shall go, not merely with confidence, but with the certainty that, just as we have enormously increased in numbers at each Election during the nineteen years of which I have spoken, just as we have come back strengthened and even doubled in numbers, as was the case at the last Election—I say we shall face the electorate confident that they will see the folly of reposing further confidence in a Conservative Government, and they will give the Labour party a majority with which to carry its will to the Statute Book.

Mr. FOOT: I want to say why some of us are influenced to cast our votes to-night in favour of the. Government. We have to consider that if this Government were turned out one of the possibilities is—it may be a remote one of course—that hon. Members opposite may come in and that is a thing which all interested in unemployment should try to avoid. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, speaking at a leading town in the West of England recently, said the only way in which they could possibly deal satisfactorily with this problem was by imposing a full system of Protection on the country, and if that were not done he would have to go pottering about and things would be getting absolutely worse. He said that without the system of Protection things would get into a very bad way and he would have no opportunity of remedying the trouble.
Since that time the right hon. Gentleman Conservative Government has thrown over the policy of Protection. [Interruption.] Surely there is no necessity to give him the chance for which he asks, and for that reason I would rather face the ills we know of than fly to ills

we wot not of in the shape of another Conservative Government.

Question put, "That Item A (1) be reduced by £100."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 300.

Division No. 86.]
AYES.
11.0 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas.C.)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Deans, Richard Storry
Locker-Lampson, Com. D. (Handsw'th)


Apstey, Lord
Dixey, A. C.
Lord, Walter Greaves


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dixon, Herbert
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Lumley, L. R.


Astor, Viscountess
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Eden, Captain Anthony
M' Connell, Thomas E.


Austin, Sir Herbert
Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.


Baird, Major Rt. Han. Sir John L.
Elliot, W. E.
Macnanhten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Elveden, Viscount
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
England, Colonel A.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Erskine. James Malcolm Monteith
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Ferguson, H.
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Fitz Roy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Meller, R. J.


Becker, Harry
Forestier-Walker, L.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell. W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moles, Thomas


Berry, Sir George
Gates, Percy
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gould, James C. (Cardiff, Central)
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Blundell, F. N.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, D. (Westminster)


Brass, Captain W.
Guest, Capt. Hn. F. E. (Gloucstr., Stroud)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfleld)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hall. Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pease, William Edwin


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pennefather. Sir John


Bullock, Captain M.
Harland, A.
Penny, Frederick George


Burman, J. B.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Klncardne)
Perring, William George


Butt, Sir Alfred
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Philllpson, Mabel


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pielou, D. P.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cassels, J D.
Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)
Pownall, Lieut. Colonel Assheton


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Raine, W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rankin. James S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Rawllnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rawson. Alfred Cooper


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hood, Sir Joseph
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Hope, Rt Hon J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Remer, J. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Remnant, Sir James


Chapman, Sir S.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rentoul G. S


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Rhys, Hon. C. A U.


Clarry, Reginald George
Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northn.)
Richardson, Lt -Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Clayton, G. C.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Roberts, Samuel (Hertford, Hereford)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hughes, Collingwood
Hobinson, Sir T (Lanes, Stretford)


Cockerill. Brigadier-General G, K.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Ropner. Major L.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Huntingfield, Lord
Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cope, Major William
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Samuel, Samysl (Wdsworth, Putney)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jephcott, A. R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Johnson, Sir L. (Waithamstow, E.)
Savery, S. S.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Joynson-Hicks, nt. Hon. Sir William
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchangs)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Curzon, Captain viscount
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W.


Dalkeith Earl of
Lamb, J. Q.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lane-Fox, George R.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon,S.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furn'ss)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wise, Sir Fredric


Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Turton. Edmund Russborough
Wolmer, Viscount


Spero, Dr. G. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Stanley, Lord
Waddington, R.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West).


Steel, Samuel Strang
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wragg, Herbert


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wells, S. R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sutcliffe, T.
Weston, John Wakefield



Sykes, Major-Gen.Sir Frederick H.
Whaler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)
Commander B. Eyres-Monsell and


Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Colonel Gibbs.


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)




NOES.


Ackroyd, T. R
Falconer, J.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)


Acland, Nt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Finney, V. H.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Keens, T.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
Kennedy, T.


Alden, Percy
Foot, Isaac
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Franklin, L. B.
Kenyon, Barnet


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Kirkwood, D.


Alstead, R.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Lansbury, George


Ammon, Charles George
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Laverack, F. J,


Asqulth, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Law, A.


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)


Ayles, W. H.
Gillett, George M.
Lawson, John James


Baker, Walter
Gorman, William
Leach, W.


Banton, G.
Gosling, Harry
Lee, F.


Barclay, R. Noton
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frame)
Lessing, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Linfield, F. C.


Barnes, A.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Livingstone, A. M.


Batey, Joseph
Greenall, T.
Loverseed, J. F.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Lowth, T.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Birkett, W. N.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Black, J. W.
Groves, T.
Mc Entee, V. L.


Bondfield, Margaret
Grundy, T. W.
Macfadyen, E.


Bonwick, A.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworlh)
Mackinder, W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon, Charles W.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Brlant, Frank
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Broad, F. A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Maden, H.


Bromfield. William
Harbord, Arthur
Mansel, Sir Courtenay


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Hardie, George D.
March, S.


Brunner, Sir J.
Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Marley, James


Buchanan, G.
Harris, Percy A.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, E.)


Buckle, J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F, G.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Maxton, James


Cape, Thomas
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Haycock, A. W.
Middleton, G.


Charleton, H. C.
Hayday, Arthur
Millar, J. D.


Church, Major A. G.
Hayes, John Henry
Mills, J. E.


Clarke, A.
Hemmerde, E. G.
Mitchell R. M. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Climie, R.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mond, H.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Montague, Frederick


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson. T. (Glasgow)
Morel, E. D.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfleld)
Morris, R. H.


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Hillary, A. E.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Compton, Joseph
Hindle, F.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Hirst, G. H.
Morse, W. E.


Costello, L. W. J.
Hobhouse, A. L.
Mosley, Oswald


Cove, W. G.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Moulton, Major Fletcher


Crittall, V. G,
Hodges, Frank
Muir, John W.


Darbishire, C. W.
Hoffman, P. C.
Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Murray, Robert


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Murrell, Frank


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hudson, J. H.
Naylor, T, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Isaacs, G. A.
Nichol, Robert


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Nixon, H.


Dickle, Captain J. P.
Jonkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Dickson, T.
Jewson. Dorothea
O'Grady, Captain James


Dodds, S. R.
John, William {Rhondda, West)
Oliver, George Harold


Dukes, C.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)


Duncan, C.
Johnstons, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Owen, Major G.


Dunn, J. Freeman
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Paling, W.


Dunnico, H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Palmer, E. T.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parry, Thomas Henry


Egan, W. H.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontyprldd)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Perry, S. F.




Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Simpson, J. Hope
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Phillipps, Vivian
Smillie, Robert
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Pilkington, R. R.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Warns, G. H.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Smith, T. (Pontelract)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Potts, John S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Raffan, P. W.
Snell, Harry
Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)


Raffety, F. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Spence, R.
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Rathbone, Hugh R.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Weir, L. M.


Raynes, W. R.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Welsh, J. C.


Rea, W. Russell
Stamford, T. W.
Westwood, J.


Rendall, A.
Starmer, Sir Charles
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Richards, R.
Stephen, Campbell
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Whiteley, W.


Ritson, J.
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wignall, James


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Stranger, Innes Harold
Williams, A. (York, W.R., Sowerby)


Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sturrock, J. Leng
Williams, David {Swansea, E.)


Robertson, T. A.
Sullivan, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Sunlight, J.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Romerll, H. G.
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)


Rose, Frank H.
Tattersall, J. L.
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent.Sevanoaks)


Royce, William Stapleton
Terrington, Lady
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Royle, C.
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)
Willison, H.


Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe).


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Thornton, Maxwell, R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Scrymgeour, E.
Thurtle, E.
Windsor, Walter


Scurr, John
Tinker, John Joseph
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Toole, J.
Wintringham, Margaret


Sexton, James
Tout, W. J.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Sherwood, George Henry
Turner, Ben
Wright, W.


Shinwell, Emanuel
Varley, Frank B.
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Short, Allred (Wednesday)
Viant, S. P.



Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withington)
Vivian, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wallhead, Richard C.
Mr. Spoor and Mr. Frederick Hall.


Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

Several hon. Members rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (2nd June).

Orders of the Day — ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS MEASURE, 1923.

Resolved,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."—[Major Birchall.]

Orders of the Day — BENEFICES ACT, 1898 (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1924.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices Act, 1898 (Amendment), Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent"— [Mr. Lansbury.]

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Motion.

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Colonel Wedgwood): This Measure applies to all patronage, whether public or private, and, accordingly, applies to patronage exercised on behalf of the Crown. I should not have intervened otherwise, but it is right that the House, in considering this Measure and a subsequent Measure, with regard to which there is a Motion on the Paper, should be informed of the fact that His Majesty has been graciously pleased to place the rights and privileges of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament, both in respect of this Measure and in respect of the Union of Benefices Measure.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if that means that any future patronage exercised by the Crown, including, I presume, not only the patronage under the right hon. Gentleman's own office of the Duchy of Lancaster, but all patronage is, in future, to be exercised by Parliament?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is merely in so far as is covered by these Measures.

Orders of the Day — UNION OF BENEFICES MEASURE, 1923.

Resolved,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Union of Benefices Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."—[Mr. Middleton.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Wedgwood.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.